HCCC324/2025 HKSAR v. WONG PUI TIM, DAVID - LawHero
HCCC324/2025
HKSAR v. WONG PUI TIM, DAVID
高等法院（刑事）S T Poon J24/3/2026[2026] HKCFI 2194
HCCC324/2025
HCCC 324/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2194 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 324 OF 2025 ----------------- HKSAR v Wong Pui-tim, David ----------------- Before: Hon S T Poon J Date: 25 March 2026 at 2.41 pm Present: Mr Ng Ka-kit, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr David D H Iu, instructed by Betty Chan & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused Offence: Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人) --------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording of the Sentence in the above Case --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(8) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. The defendant and the victim in this case, Madam Sheung, were married in 1988, but separated without a divorce in about 2004 to 2005. On 6 July 2024, at about 10 o’clock in the morning, the defendant used a hammer to hit on Madam Sheung’s head many times that caused her injuries. On the date of the attack, Madam Sheung was supposed to help tidying up the defendant’s apartment for renovation, together with her domestic helper. They met the defendant at the lobby of the apartment. There, the defendant told Madam Sheung that he had something for her, and the two alone took the lift together to the 19th Floor, where the defendant’s unit was located. On the 19th Floor, the defendant pushed Madam Sheung to the rear staircase area, took out a hammer from the recycling bag he was carrying, and started hitting her head. The attack lasted for some time, and eventually came to a halt, where the defendant was seen trying to inflict a wound on his neck with a cutter. The defendant was later subdued by policemen. Madam Sheung was admitted to the A & E Department of Eastern Hospital for treatment. She was found to have suffered multiple lacerations over her scalp and forehead of 1 to 3 centimetres in length, with underlying scalp bone exposed. She also had multiple lacerations over her right index and middle fingers and bruises over her left ringer and little fingers. She was treated by the Department of Neurosurgery, and the scalp lacerations were closed by suturing in ward. She was discharged on 9 July, and the neurosurgical diagnosis was minor head injury and was managed conservatively with bedside suturing and medications. Her scars were well and all healed at discharge. Regarding the injuries on her hands and fingers, wound exploration and repair as well as operation were performed. Physiotherapy and occupational therapy were referred for extensor tendon repair programme post-operatively. On the date of the offence, the defendant was also admitted to Eastern Hospital. He had multiple long slash marks and superficial lacerations over his anterior neck. He was admitted to the psychiatric ward and was diagnosed to have (been?) suffering from depression. The defendant is now 69 years old. At the time of the offence, he was 67. He has no criminal record. Since after his completion of Form 5, he had been working in and operating a glass shop he succeeded from his parents until his retirement in or about 2016. At the first hearing, following the mitigation advanced by Mr Iu, counsel for the defendant, I found it necessary to have more information on the defendant’s background and mental history in order to help understanding more about the motive of the defendant or reason behind the present offence. I also found it necessary to know more about the impact of the attack on Madam Sheung. Hence, a clinical psychologist’s report on the defendant and a victim impact report on Madam Sheung were ordered. I have had cite of the reports before today’s hearing. I shall not recite the contents in detail, as there is a lot of personal information and feelings expressed in the reports, which I think should be privy to the defendant and Madam Sheung. It would be sufficient to mention here that the defendant has all along been a person with rigid beliefs about his family and work responsibilities. From his young age, he has seen his family as his primary driving force, consistently prioritising their needs over his own. He has a tendency to bottle up his feelings, even when faced with major life stressors, such as his marital separation and his daughter’s cancer diagnosis. He avoided sharing his emotions with others but instead coped by suppressing them. According to the clinical psychologist, the defendant’s chronic emotional suppression likely contributed to a dysphoric mood after his separation, which intensified in 2023 up to the date of the offence, and there were permanent depressive symptoms that appeared. His contained feelings of hopelessness and frustration regarding his marital relationship had accumulated to such a high level that ultimately led him to commit the present offence. Such hopelessness and helplessness of the defendant had bottled up for 20 years. With the above background in mind, I shall move on to consider the proper sentence regarding the present offence. There is no guideline in sentencing for this kind of offence. The usual sentences range from 3 to 12 years, and I cite HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225. In the present case, the attack was brutal and premeditated. It lasted for a period of time and aimed at Madam Sheung’s head. It was only pure luck that the injuries were not too serious, and Madam Sheung recovered quickly. However, as can be seen from the impact report, Madam Sheung continues to experience symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress symptoms. The trauma undermined her sense of physical and emotional safety, as well as her capacity for trust in others. According to the clinical psychologist, the defendant expressed remorse for the physical and emotional harm he had inflicted on Madam Sheung, whom he actually loved. He was ready to accept his sentence as a punishment for his serious wrongdoing. It is the opinion of the clinical psychologist that the risk of the defendant reoffending is low. Mr Iu, counsel for the defendant, submitted mitigation letters written by the defendant’s brothers, younger daughter, and Madam Sheung. They all asked the court to give a lenient sentence. They expressed that they were shocked to know the defendant committing the present offence and they do not understand why it happened. Madam Sheung expressed that she has forgiven the defendant and that the defendant’s parents are very old and with disabilities, who are very much in need of the defendant’s care. She wishes that the defendant will not face with a lengthy sentence. As I mentioned above, there is no guideline on sentencing of this kind of offence. In this case, I am satisfied that the defendant is not a violent person. He has been a responsible person throughout his life, and taking upon himself immense pressure, both from his work and family. As opined by the clinical psychologist, the defendant’s limited cognitive flexibility and a tendency to suppress his emotions accumulated to the development of serious depression, which unfortunately contributed to the defendant’s commission of the present offence. And most importantly, Madam Sheung has forgiven the defendant. Taking into account all the above factors, I am of the view that a sentence with a starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. Taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence be reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.
HCCC 324/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2194 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 324 OF 2025 ----------------- HKSAR v Wong Pui-tim, David ----------------- Before: Hon S T Poon J Date: 25 March 2026 at 2.41 pm Present: Mr Ng Ka-kit, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr David D H Iu, instructed by Betty Chan & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused Offence: Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人) --------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording of the Sentence in the above Case --------------------------------- COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(8) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. The defendant and the victim in this case, Madam Sheung, were married in 1988, but separated without a divorce in about 2004 to 2005. On 6 July 2024, at about 10 o’clock in the morning, the defendant used a hammer to hit on Madam Sheung’s head many times that caused her injuries. On the date of the attack, Madam Sheung was supposed to help tidying up the defendant’s apartment for renovation, together with her domestic helper. They met the defendant at the lobby of the apartment. There, the defendant told Madam Sheung that he had something for her, and the two alone took the lift together to the 19th Floor, where the defendant’s unit was located. On the 19th Floor, the defendant pushed Madam Sheung to the rear staircase area, took out a hammer from the recycling bag he was carrying, and started hitting her head. The attack lasted for some time, and eventually came to a halt, where the defendant was seen trying to inflict a wound on his neck with a cutter. The defendant was later subdued by policemen. Madam Sheung was admitted to the A & E Department of Eastern Hospital for treatment. She was found to have suffered multiple lacerations over her scalp and forehead of 1 to 3 centimetres in length, with underlying scalp bone exposed. She also had multiple lacerations over her right index and middle fingers and bruises over her left ringer and little fingers. She was treated by the Department of Neurosurgery, and the scalp lacerations were closed by suturing in ward. She was discharged on 9 July, and the neurosurgical diagnosis was minor head injury and was managed conservatively with bedside suturing and medications. Her scars were well and all healed at discharge. Regarding the injuries on her hands and fingers, wound exploration and repair as well as operation were performed. Physiotherapy and occupational therapy were referred for extensor tendon repair programme post-operatively. On the date of the offence, the defendant was also admitted to Eastern Hospital. He had multiple long slash marks and superficial lacerations over his anterior neck. He was admitted to the psychiatric ward and was diagnosed to have (been?) suffering from depression. The defendant is now 69 years old. At the time of the offence, he was 67. He has no criminal record. Since after his completion of Form 5, he had been working in and operating a glass shop he succeeded from his parents until his retirement in or about 2016. At the first hearing, following the mitigation advanced by Mr Iu, counsel for the defendant, I found it necessary to have more information on the defendant’s background and mental history in order to help understanding more about the motive of the defendant or reason behind the present offence. I also found it necessary to know more about the impact of the attack on Madam Sheung. Hence, a clinical psychologist’s report on the defendant and a victim impact report on Madam Sheung were ordered. I have had cite of the reports before today’s hearing. I shall not recite the contents in detail, as there is a lot of personal information and feelings expressed in the reports, which I think should be privy to the defendant and Madam Sheung. It would be sufficient to mention here that the defendant has all along been a person with rigid beliefs about his family and work responsibilities. From his young age, he has seen his family as his primary driving force, consistently prioritising their needs over his own. He has a tendency to bottle up his feelings, even when faced with major life stressors, such as his marital separation and his daughter’s cancer diagnosis. He avoided sharing his emotions with others but instead coped by suppressing them. According to the clinical psychologist, the defendant’s chronic emotional suppression likely contributed to a dysphoric mood after his separation, which intensified in 2023 up to the date of the offence, and there were permanent depressive symptoms that appeared. His contained feelings of hopelessness and frustration regarding his marital relationship had accumulated to such a high level that ultimately led him to commit the present offence. Such hopelessness and helplessness of the defendant had bottled up for 20 years. With the above background in mind, I shall move on to consider the proper sentence regarding the present offence. There is no guideline in sentencing for this kind of offence. The usual sentences range from 3 to 12 years, and I cite HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225. In the present case, the attack was brutal and premeditated. It lasted for a period of time and aimed at Madam Sheung’s head. It was only pure luck that the injuries were not too serious, and Madam Sheung recovered quickly. However, as can be seen from the impact report, Madam Sheung continues to experience symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress symptoms. The trauma undermined her sense of physical and emotional safety, as well as her capacity for trust in others. According to the clinical psychologist, the defendant expressed remorse for the physical and emotional harm he had inflicted on Madam Sheung, whom he actually loved. He was ready to accept his sentence as a punishment for his serious wrongdoing. It is the opinion of the clinical psychologist that the risk of the defendant reoffending is low. Mr Iu, counsel for the defendant, submitted mitigation letters written by the defendant’s brothers, younger daughter, and Madam Sheung. They all asked the court to give a lenient sentence. They expressed that they were shocked to know the defendant committing the present offence and they do not understand why it happened. Madam Sheung expressed that she has forgiven the defendant and that the defendant’s parents are very old and with disabilities, who are very much in need of the defendant’s care. She wishes that the defendant will not face with a lengthy sentence. As I mentioned above, there is no guideline on sentencing of this kind of offence. In this case, I am satisfied that the defendant is not a violent person. He has been a responsible person throughout his life, and taking upon himself immense pressure, both from his work and family. As opined by the clinical psychologist, the defendant’s limited cognitive flexibility and a tendency to suppress his emotions accumulated to the development of serious depression, which unfortunately contributed to the defendant’s commission of the present offence. And most importantly, Madam Sheung has forgiven the defendant. Taking into account all the above factors, I am of the view that a sentence with a starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. Taking into account the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence be reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.