DCCC 591/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.591 OF 2013
---------------------------
HKSAR
v.
WONG Tat-chi
---------------------------
Before: District Judge Douglas T.H. Yau
Date: 25 September 2013 at 10:53am
Present: Ms. Lisa Go, Public Prosecutor for HKSAR
Mrs. Cecilia Wong of M/S Kevin Ng & Co, assigned by DLA,
for the Defendant
Offence: Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人)
----------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
----------------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Wounding with Intent,
contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.
Particulars of the charge are that he on 14th April 2013, outside ground floor
of Heng Tsui House, Fu Heng Estate in Tai Po, unlawfully and maliciously
wounded Lai Wai Kwong, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
2. Summary of facts
3. The defendant and the 52 year old victim both reside at Fu Heng Estate but
they did not know each other. At about 10:15am on 14th April, while the two
of them were watching people playing chess at the ground floor of Heng Tsui
House, they had a dispute over some chess playing tactics. There was some
physical contact and bumping into each other. The defendant left the scene
while the victim stayed.
4. About 25 minutes later, the defendant having bought a chopper from a nearby
shop returned to the chess playing area and chopped the victim on the back of
his neck, shouting that he will chop him to death. People standing by
managed to stop the defendant from further attacks and the defendant fled.
5. The victim was escorted to hospital and received 5 stitches for his neck
wound. He was discharged on the same day.
6. Police officers conducted investigations and searched the Fu Heng Estate
area. The defendant was spotted at about 12:55pm and was intercepted. Upon
2
enquiry, he admitted that he had chopped someone that morning at Heng Tsui
House.
7. Under caution and in the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant
claimed he argued with someone when watching others playing chess. The
other person punched his left face once from behind. The defendant then went
to buy a chopper for $80 at a nearby shop, intending to use it to scare him.
The defendant claimed he used the blunt side of the chopper to hit the
victim's left shoulder for one or two times, he did not notice if the victim was
injured and he did not think he would be. The defendant denied shouting he
will chop the person to death.
8. Closed circuit television footage captured the defendant buying the chopper
and then walking to where the incident took place at about 10:40am. The
defendant was positively identified as the assailant in an Identification
Parade.
Previous Convictions
9. The defendant has one conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
and one for gambling in 1987 and 2012 respectively.
Mitigation
10. Mrs. Wong for the defendant prepared a helpful written submission.
11. The defendant is 52 years old. He had been working as a driver for Acto
Stationery Limited since 1997. The company has written to the court to
indicate that they are willing to re-employ the defendant after he had served
his sentence.
12. The defendant had taken part in charity work, helping to deliver household
items, stationery and toys to elderly homes and charitable organizations.
13. The defendant suffered work injuries about 10 years ago which resulted in his
right hand and left leg being permanently impaired with 14% permanent
disability. The defendant continued to be gainfully employed and supported
the family despite his injuries.
14. Although the defendant has 2 previous convictions, only the first one was
related to violence and the conviction dated back to 1987 and is regarded as
spent under the Rehabilitation of Offender Ordinance, Cap.297. The only
other conviction was for gambling in 2012 when he was fined $300.
Cases
15. Mrs. Wong referred to the cases of HKSAR v Wong Keung, DCCC 322/2013,
Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1 HKLRD 1083, CAAR
9/2010 and Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen, CAAR 12/2007 in her
submissions.
3
16. Ms. Go for the prosecution referred to the cases of Secretary for Justice v Yu
Yat Sang [2011] HKLRD A5, CAAR 2/2010 and HKSAR v Chu Sze Wing
[2012] 4 HKLRD I5, CACC 289/2011.
17. In Chu Sze Wing, the applicant and the victim lived in adjoining cubicles and
were on bad terms. On the day of the attack, the applicant lost his temper,
grabbed a chopper, banged on the victim’s door and struck his face, inflicting
three 3-5 cm wounds to his forehead, right cheek and left corner of his mouth,
causing considerable bleeding. The victim managed to grab the applicant’s
wrist and they remained locked together until Police arrived. As it turned out,
the victim’s wounds were not serious and he was discharged from hospital the
same day, with some scarring but no permanent disability.
18. The Court of Appeal found that there was no premeditation in the
commission of the offence, that the applicant had acted impulsively and the
time lapse between his loss of self-control, his seizing of the chopper and his
attack would only have been seconds. Given that the injuries were not
serious, the Court found that an appropriate sentence was 4 years’
imprisonment after trial.
19. At paragraph 18 of the Reasons for Judgment, the Court referred to the
passage in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1
HKLRD 1083 where a practical definition of what constituted the aggravating
feature of premeditation was given:
“This was not purely an unpremeditated case. It was not the case that the
respondent offhandedly picked up an object at the scene to attack PW1 when
he was engulfed in rage. His acts were planned and malicious: after the two
had an argument over the phone, the respondent left the mall and took a 10
minutes’ walk to buy a weapon before returning to the mall. On the way, he
even phoned his girlfriend, making threatening remarks to PW1. This is
different from the circumstances where a person attacked another person
having lost control of his emotions as a result of a dispute.”
20. In the actual case of Hung Kar Chun, the respondent attacked the elder
brother of his girlfriend after being disgruntled at the elder brother’s attempts
to persuade his girlfriend to break up with him. On the day of the attack,
while the brother and girlfriend were at a shopping mall, the respondent kept
calling his girlfriend and so the elder brother asked the respondent to meet to
negotiate a solution. The respondent then went to a shop 10 minutes away and
bought a 20 cm fruit knife. The respondent then went to the mall and attacked
the elder brother, resulting in serious injuries which required his spleen to be
removed.
21. The Court of Appeal, in substituting a sentence of 2 and a half years’
imprisonment, stated that the court would impose more severe punishments
involving such weapons as a chopper or knife on minor provocation or in a
dispute. The Court, as mentioned above, also found that it was not purely an
unpremeditated attack.
Sentence
4
22. The maximum sentence for s.17(a) is that of life imprisonment.
23. The victim’s injuries are not serious. He did need 5 stitches but was able to be
discharged on the same day. There is no suggestion that he would suffer any
long term physical damage.
24. The defendant left the scene of the dispute and walked a short distance to a
shop nearby to buy a chopper. He then walked back to the scene and carried
out the attack. The dispute and the buying of the chopper was some 15 to 20
minutes apart, the defendant had enough time to calm down and consider his
actions. Yet he still made the decision to attack the victim. It was not a spur
of the moment attack. With reference to the practical definition of
premeditation quoted above, I find that there was premeditation in the
defendant’s commission of the offence.
25. Although the injury to the victim in our case is not serious, the gravamen of
this offence lies in the type of harm to the victim that the defendant intended
to cause. Any intentional blow with a chopper aimed at the head or neck of
another person is risking the life of another. I do find however that the blow
was not applied with a lot of ferocity, or Mr. Lai would have suffered far
more serious injuries given that there was no warning before he was attacked
and he had no opportunity to defend himself from the blow.
26. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, the good employment record
of the defendant, his charitable acts and his minor criminal records, but
balancing that with the seriousness of the offence, the sentence in other
similar cases, in particular Chu Sze Wing, I find that an appropriate starting
point is that of 4 years’ imprisonment. I will grant the defendant the full one
third discount upon his plea of guilty and sentence him to 2 years and 8
months’ imprisonment.
Douglas T.H. Yau
District Judge
DCCC 591/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.591 OF 2013
---------------------------
HKSAR
v.
WONG Tat-chi
---------------------------
Before: District Judge Douglas T.H. Yau
Date: 25 September 2013 at 10:53am
Present: Ms. Lisa Go, Public Prosecutor for HKSAR
Mrs. Cecilia Wong of M/S Kevin Ng & Co, assigned by DLA,
for the Defendant
Offence: Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人)
----------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
----------------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Wounding with Intent,
contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.
Particulars of the charge are that he on 14th April 2013, outside ground floor
of Heng Tsui House, Fu Heng Estate in Tai Po, unlawfully and maliciously
wounded Lai Wai Kwong, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
2. Summary of facts
3. The defendant and the 52 year old victim both reside at Fu Heng Estate but
they did not know each other. At about 10:15am on 14th April, while the two
of them were watching people playing chess at the ground floor of Heng Tsui
House, they had a dispute over some chess playing tactics. There was some
physical contact and bumping into each other. The defendant left the scene
while the victim stayed.
4. About 25 minutes later, the defendant having bought a chopper from a nearby
shop returned to the chess playing area and chopped the victim on the back of
his neck, shouting that he will chop him to death. People standing by
managed to stop the defendant from further attacks and the defendant fled.
5. The victim was escorted to hospital and received 5 stitches for his neck
wound. He was discharged on the same day.
6. Police officers conducted investigations and searched the Fu Heng Estate
area. The defendant was spotted at about 12:55pm and was intercepted. Upon
2
enquiry, he admitted that he had chopped someone that morning at Heng Tsui
House.
7. Under caution and in the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant
claimed he argued with someone when watching others playing chess. The
other person punched his left face once from behind. The defendant then went
to buy a chopper for $80 at a nearby shop, intending to use it to scare him.
The defendant claimed he used the blunt side of the chopper to hit the
victim's left shoulder for one or two times, he did not notice if the victim was
injured and he did not think he would be. The defendant denied shouting he
will chop the person to death.
8. Closed circuit television footage captured the defendant buying the chopper
and then walking to where the incident took place at about 10:40am. The
defendant was positively identified as the assailant in an Identification
Parade.
Previous Convictions
9. The defendant has one conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm
and one for gambling in 1987 and 2012 respectively.
Mitigation
10. Mrs. Wong for the defendant prepared a helpful written submission.
11. The defendant is 52 years old. He had been working as a driver for Acto
Stationery Limited since 1997. The company has written to the court to
indicate that they are willing to re-employ the defendant after he had served
his sentence.
12. The defendant had taken part in charity work, helping to deliver household
items, stationery and toys to elderly homes and charitable organizations.
13. The defendant suffered work injuries about 10 years ago which resulted in his
right hand and left leg being permanently impaired with 14% permanent
disability. The defendant continued to be gainfully employed and supported
the family despite his injuries.
14. Although the defendant has 2 previous convictions, only the first one was
related to violence and the conviction dated back to 1987 and is regarded as
spent under the Rehabilitation of Offender Ordinance, Cap.297. The only
other conviction was for gambling in 2012 when he was fined $300.
Cases
15. Mrs. Wong referred to the cases of HKSAR v Wong Keung, DCCC 322/2013,
Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1 HKLRD 1083, CAAR
9/2010 and Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen, CAAR 12/2007 in her
submissions.
3
16. Ms. Go for the prosecution referred to the cases of Secretary for Justice v Yu
Yat Sang [2011] HKLRD A5, CAAR 2/2010 and HKSAR v Chu Sze Wing
[2012] 4 HKLRD I5, CACC 289/2011.
17. In Chu Sze Wing, the applicant and the victim lived in adjoining cubicles and
were on bad terms. On the day of the attack, the applicant lost his temper,
grabbed a chopper, banged on the victim’s door and struck his face, inflicting
three 3-5 cm wounds to his forehead, right cheek and left corner of his mouth,
causing considerable bleeding. The victim managed to grab the applicant’s
wrist and they remained locked together until Police arrived. As it turned out,
the victim’s wounds were not serious and he was discharged from hospital the
same day, with some scarring but no permanent disability.
18. The Court of Appeal found that there was no premeditation in the
commission of the offence, that the applicant had acted impulsively and the
time lapse between his loss of self-control, his seizing of the chopper and his
attack would only have been seconds. Given that the injuries were not
serious, the Court found that an appropriate sentence was 4 years’
imprisonment after trial.
19. At paragraph 18 of the Reasons for Judgment, the Court referred to the
passage in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1
HKLRD 1083 where a practical definition of what constituted the aggravating
feature of premeditation was given:
“This was not purely an unpremeditated case. It was not the case that the
respondent offhandedly picked up an object at the scene to attack PW1 when
he was engulfed in rage. His acts were planned and malicious: after the two
had an argument over the phone, the respondent left the mall and took a 10
minutes’ walk to buy a weapon before returning to the mall. On the way, he
even phoned his girlfriend, making threatening remarks to PW1. This is
different from the circumstances where a person attacked another person
having lost control of his emotions as a result of a dispute.”
20. In the actual case of Hung Kar Chun, the respondent attacked the elder
brother of his girlfriend after being disgruntled at the elder brother’s attempts
to persuade his girlfriend to break up with him. On the day of the attack,
while the brother and girlfriend were at a shopping mall, the respondent kept
calling his girlfriend and so the elder brother asked the respondent to meet to
negotiate a solution. The respondent then went to a shop 10 minutes away and
bought a 20 cm fruit knife. The respondent then went to the mall and attacked
the elder brother, resulting in serious injuries which required his spleen to be
removed.
21. The Court of Appeal, in substituting a sentence of 2 and a half years’
imprisonment, stated that the court would impose more severe punishments
involving such weapons as a chopper or knife on minor provocation or in a
dispute. The Court, as mentioned above, also found that it was not purely an
unpremeditated attack.
Sentence
4
22. The maximum sentence for s.17(a) is that of life imprisonment.
23. The victim’s injuries are not serious. He did need 5 stitches but was able to be
discharged on the same day. There is no suggestion that he would suffer any
long term physical damage.
24. The defendant left the scene of the dispute and walked a short distance to a
shop nearby to buy a chopper. He then walked back to the scene and carried
out the attack. The dispute and the buying of the chopper was some 15 to 20
minutes apart, the defendant had enough time to calm down and consider his
actions. Yet he still made the decision to attack the victim. It was not a spur
of the moment attack. With reference to the practical definition of
premeditation quoted above, I find that there was premeditation in the
defendant’s commission of the offence.
25. Although the injury to the victim in our case is not serious, the gravamen of
this offence lies in the type of harm to the victim that the defendant intended
to cause. Any intentional blow with a chopper aimed at the head or neck of
another person is risking the life of another. I do find however that the blow
was not applied with a lot of ferocity, or Mr. Lai would have suffered far
more serious injuries given that there was no warning before he was attacked
and he had no opportunity to defend himself from the blow.
26. Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, the good employment record
of the defendant, his charitable acts and his minor criminal records, but
balancing that with the seriousness of the offence, the sentence in other
similar cases, in particular Chu Sze Wing, I find that an appropriate starting
point is that of 4 years’ imprisonment. I will grant the defendant the full one
third discount upon his plea of guilty and sentence him to 2 years and 8
months’ imprisonment.
Douglas T.H. Yau
District Judge