區域法院（刑事）Her Honour Judge Wong Sze-lai, Lily20/7/2025[2025] HKDC 1249
DCCC563/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 563/2024
[2025] HKDC 1249
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 563 OF 2024 E
F F
------------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H
v H
BHUIYAN JASHIM UDDIN
I I
------------------------------
J J
Before: Her Honour Judge Wong Sze-lai, Lily
K K
Date: 21 July 2025
L Present: Mr Oliver Howell Davies, Counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, instructed by Messrs. Kevin Ng &
M M
Co., Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the
N Defendant N
Offence: Wounding （傷人）
O O
P --------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Charge
C 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of C
wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person
D D
Ordinance, Cap. 212. He admitted the following facts.
E E
Facts
F F
2. At the material time, the defendant and Mr. HUMAYUN
G MOHAMMAD (the victim aged 35) and another person (Male A) lived at G
Room A, 1st Floor, No. 107 Temple Street (the Flat). Both the defendant
H H
and the victim shared the same bedroom whilst Male A also lived in the
I Flat. The defendant had been living at the Flat for about 13 to 14 months I
whilst the victim moved in above 6 to 7 months ago.
J J
K 3. In the morning on 26 November 2023, the defendant went to K
the bathroom and moved away the water bucket placed under the air
L L
conditioner. Seeing this, the victim swore at him in the presence of Male
M A. The victim and Male A also punched the defendant on his left shoulder, M
though the defendant suffered no injury. In response, the defendant picked
N N
up a 28-cm long knife, with 16-cm long blade, from the kitchen area and
O used it to strike the victim on the left ear and the chest. The case was then O
reported to the police.
P P
Q 4. At about 10.22 am, PC 15784 (PW1), together with other Q
police officers, arrived at the Flat. The victim was lying on the floor and
R R
was found to have a 6 cm cut on the back of his left ear, a 3 cm cut on his
S left ear and a 2 cm cut on his chest. At about 10.47 am, PW1 arrested the S
defendant for “Wounding”. The victim was then sent to Kwong Wah
T T
Hospital.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. A cautioned interview was taken from the defendant. He C
admitted that it was wrong to hurt someone with a knife. A video-recorded
D D
cautioned interview was subsequently conducted with the defendant by
E WDPC 25190. Under caution, he revealed the incident to PW2. E
F F
Criminal Record
G G
6. The defendant is of clear record.
H H
I Mitigation I
7. Mr Tracy, Counsel for the defendant, submitted that the
J J
defendant is now 55 years old. In 2015, he left Bangladesh for China and
K then entered Hong Kong unlawfully to make a claim for refugee status. He K
then became a Form 8 Recognizance holder.
L L
M 8. The defendant completed High School education in M
Bangladesh. He managed his own grocery shop business in the village
N N
where he lived in Bangladesh and earned around $5,000 “taka” (about
O O
HK$300) each month. He is married with three children.
P P
9. On the date of the offence he lived at the Flat which was
Q Q
assigned by I.S.S. for the three of them to live together. He first resided
R
there in October 2022. He is, of necessity, unemployed and relies on I.S.S. R
S S
10. The defendant declined medical assistance on the day of the
T offence out of panic. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
11. Mr Tracy said the defendant was a frail thin elderly man who
C was physically no match for his much younger and more robust room-mate C
and Male A.
D D
E 12. Mr Tracy also said the victim did not give a witness statement E
until about two months after the incident, and some weeks later contacted
F F
the police and made clear that he would not pursue the wounding case
G against the defendant. In a letter of 8 March 2024, the victim wrote to the G
police that he had forgiven the defendant and would not testify. It is
H H
submitted that the victim has made a complete recovery.
I I
13. Mr Tracy considered that the offence is definitely at the lower
J J
end of the spectrum for a section 19 wounding offence. He provided the
K following two cases for the court’s reference: HKSAR v Liu Man Kuen K
[2000] 4 HKC 397 and SJ v Yu Yat Sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 and was of the
L L
view that in all the circumstances of the case, a sentence of less than 12
M months would not be reviewable. M
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O 14. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything O
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Tracy and the authorities referred to.
P P
Q 15. In HKSAR v Wong Luk Sau [2013] 2 HKLRD 201, the Court Q
of Appeal said that there were no sentencing guidelines for this offence.
R R
“18. For the offence of wounding with intent, the
S S
circumstances of the offence and the background of
offenders differ from case to case, and other decided cases
T are, in our view, of limited reference value.” T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
16. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat CACC 317/2012, the Court of
C Appeal has given a non-exhaustive list of factors usually relevant to the C
sentence as follows, at paragraph 49:-
D D
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated;
E E
(2) the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon
F the victim; F
G (3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the G
time of the assault;
H H
(4) whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of
I I
the assailant;
J J
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant
K alone or as part of a group; K
L
(6) the type of weapons employed; L
(7) the level of force or aggression and the persistence
M M
with which the assault was pressed home;
N N
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
O O
(9) the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close
P to him or her. P
Q Q
17. In paragraphs 50 and 51, the Court of Appeal also said:-
R R
“In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his
S conduct, but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, S
both general and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the
need to denounce the resort to violence…
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B …By their sentences the courts must make clear that B
violence will never be regarded as an acceptable way of
C dealing with personal issues.” C
D D
18. Although we are dealing with a section 19 not a section 17
E wounding offence, the above mentioned guidelines are still applicable. E
F F
19. In the present case, I note that the defendant is a first offender.
G I also note that the defendant was somehow insulted and assaulted by the G
victim and Male A before the defendant attacked the victim. It appears that
H H
the defendant lost control on the spur of the moment and picked up a
I weapon that was to hand. That said, the attack was not premeditated. I
J J
20. However, I do not lose sight that the weapon, i.e. the chopper
K which I have examined in court, is a vicious weapon and it can cause K
serious bodily harm. The defendant did not use the weapon to strike the
L L
victim once. He struck him again. As a result, the victim suffered injuries
M to his ear and chest. M
N N
21. I have looked at the photo album which depicts the wounds of
O the defendant. There was a deep cut to the outer part (helix) to his left ear. O
The photo showing the injury is rather gruesome, and Mr Tracy accepted
P P
that it was a serious wounding. There was also a wound to the victim’s
Q chest though it appears to be not very serious. Q
R R
22. Fortunately, the medical report submitted by Mr Davies,
S S
Counsel for the prosecution, revealed that the on the day of admission,
T
“Wounds were managed by suturing under local anesthesia, regular T
dressing, analgesia and antibiotics. He was last seen in plastic surgery
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
outpatient on 8/1/2024 with all wounds healed without significant scarring
C problem.” C
D D
23. As stated in Chan Chun Tat, “…deterrence and denunciation
E are always important when there is resort to violence…”. Here, a deterrent E
sentence is called for. Having considered all the circumstances of the case,
F F
I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
24. The defendant is a Form 8 holder. Mr Tracy considered that
H H
if the court was minded to enhance the sentence, it should only be 1 or 2
I months. I
J 25. In HKSAR v Ali Saif CACC 309/2017, the Hon Macrae VP J
said:
K K
“17. … Form 8 recognizance holders, whose non-
refoulement applications may take several years to deal with,
L L
must be firmly discouraged from becoming involved in
serious crimes, whilst their applications are being
M processed.” M
N N
1
26. In HKSAR v Singh Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274 , it was
O said that there are two principles underlying the amount of enhancement O
where the accused is a Form 8 recognizance holder, namely denunciation
P P
of criminal activity by Form 8 holders, and deterrence of all Form 8 holders
Q Q
from committing crimes while they enjoy the freedom to live in Hong
R
Kong as they await resolution of their claims 2. R
S S
T T
1
Paragraphs 38 - 44
2
See: Sentencing in Hong Kong, 11 th Edition, Cross & Cheung, page 24
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
27. In light of the aforesaid, I enhance the sentence, for the
C defendant’s status as a Form 8 holder, by 3 months to 21 months’ C
imprisonment.
D D
E 28. The defendant indicated his plea of guilty immediately after E
the charge was amended from a wounding 17 offence to a wounding 19
F F
offence. As such, he is entitled to a one-third discount for
G sentence. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to 14 months’ imprisonment. G
H H
29. There are no other valid mitigating factors which can further
I reduce the sentence. I
J J
30. The defendant is sentenced to 14 month’s imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
( Wong Sze-lai, Lily )
N N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
DCCC563/2024 HKSAR v. BHUIYAN JASHIM UDDIN - LawHero
A A
B B
DCCC 563/2024
[2025] HKDC 1249
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 563 OF 2024 E
F F
------------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H
v H
BHUIYAN JASHIM UDDIN
I I
------------------------------
J J
Before: Her Honour Judge Wong Sze-lai, Lily
K K
Date: 21 July 2025
L Present: Mr Oliver Howell Davies, Counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Maurice Peter Tracy, instructed by Messrs. Kevin Ng &
M M
Co., Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the
N Defendant N
Offence: Wounding （傷人）
O O
P --------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
---------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Charge
C 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of C
wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person
D D
Ordinance, Cap. 212. He admitted the following facts.
E E
Facts
F F
2. At the material time, the defendant and Mr. HUMAYUN
G MOHAMMAD (the victim aged 35) and another person (Male A) lived at G
Room A, 1st Floor, No. 107 Temple Street (the Flat). Both the defendant
H H
and the victim shared the same bedroom whilst Male A also lived in the
I Flat. The defendant had been living at the Flat for about 13 to 14 months I
whilst the victim moved in above 6 to 7 months ago.
J J
K 3. In the morning on 26 November 2023, the defendant went to K
the bathroom and moved away the water bucket placed under the air
L L
conditioner. Seeing this, the victim swore at him in the presence of Male
M A. The victim and Male A also punched the defendant on his left shoulder, M
though the defendant suffered no injury. In response, the defendant picked
N N
up a 28-cm long knife, with 16-cm long blade, from the kitchen area and
O used it to strike the victim on the left ear and the chest. The case was then O
reported to the police.
P P
Q 4. At about 10.22 am, PC 15784 (PW1), together with other Q
police officers, arrived at the Flat. The victim was lying on the floor and
R R
was found to have a 6 cm cut on the back of his left ear, a 3 cm cut on his
S left ear and a 2 cm cut on his chest. At about 10.47 am, PW1 arrested the S
defendant for “Wounding”. The victim was then sent to Kwong Wah
T T
Hospital.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 5. A cautioned interview was taken from the defendant. He C
admitted that it was wrong to hurt someone with a knife. A video-recorded
D D
cautioned interview was subsequently conducted with the defendant by
E WDPC 25190. Under caution, he revealed the incident to PW2. E
F F
Criminal Record
G G
6. The defendant is of clear record.
H H
I Mitigation I
7. Mr Tracy, Counsel for the defendant, submitted that the
J J
defendant is now 55 years old. In 2015, he left Bangladesh for China and
K then entered Hong Kong unlawfully to make a claim for refugee status. He K
then became a Form 8 Recognizance holder.
L L
M 8. The defendant completed High School education in M
Bangladesh. He managed his own grocery shop business in the village
N N
where he lived in Bangladesh and earned around $5,000 “taka” (about
O O
HK$300) each month. He is married with three children.
P P
9. On the date of the offence he lived at the Flat which was
Q Q
assigned by I.S.S. for the three of them to live together. He first resided
R
there in October 2022. He is, of necessity, unemployed and relies on I.S.S. R
S S
10. The defendant declined medical assistance on the day of the
T offence out of panic. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
11. Mr Tracy said the defendant was a frail thin elderly man who
C was physically no match for his much younger and more robust room-mate C
and Male A.
D D
E 12. Mr Tracy also said the victim did not give a witness statement E
until about two months after the incident, and some weeks later contacted
F F
the police and made clear that he would not pursue the wounding case
G against the defendant. In a letter of 8 March 2024, the victim wrote to the G
police that he had forgiven the defendant and would not testify. It is
H H
submitted that the victim has made a complete recovery.
I I
13. Mr Tracy considered that the offence is definitely at the lower
J J
end of the spectrum for a section 19 wounding offence. He provided the
K following two cases for the court’s reference: HKSAR v Liu Man Kuen K
[2000] 4 HKC 397 and SJ v Yu Yat Sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 and was of the
L L
view that in all the circumstances of the case, a sentence of less than 12
M months would not be reviewable. M
N N
Reasons for Sentence
O 14. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything O
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Tracy and the authorities referred to.
P P
Q 15. In HKSAR v Wong Luk Sau [2013] 2 HKLRD 201, the Court Q
of Appeal said that there were no sentencing guidelines for this offence.
R R
“18. For the offence of wounding with intent, the
S S
circumstances of the offence and the background of
offenders differ from case to case, and other decided cases
T are, in our view, of limited reference value.” T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
16. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat CACC 317/2012, the Court of
C Appeal has given a non-exhaustive list of factors usually relevant to the C
sentence as follows, at paragraph 49:-
D D
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated;
E E
(2) the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon
F the victim; F
G (3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the G
time of the assault;
H H
(4) whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of
I I
the assailant;
J J
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant
K alone or as part of a group; K
L
(6) the type of weapons employed; L
(7) the level of force or aggression and the persistence
M M
with which the assault was pressed home;
N N
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
O O
(9) the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close
P to him or her. P
Q Q
17. In paragraphs 50 and 51, the Court of Appeal also said:-
R R
“In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his
S conduct, but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, S
both general and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the
need to denounce the resort to violence…
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B …By their sentences the courts must make clear that B
violence will never be regarded as an acceptable way of
C dealing with personal issues.” C
D D
18. Although we are dealing with a section 19 not a section 17
E wounding offence, the above mentioned guidelines are still applicable. E
F F
19. In the present case, I note that the defendant is a first offender.
G I also note that the defendant was somehow insulted and assaulted by the G
victim and Male A before the defendant attacked the victim. It appears that
H H
the defendant lost control on the spur of the moment and picked up a
I weapon that was to hand. That said, the attack was not premeditated. I
J J
20. However, I do not lose sight that the weapon, i.e. the chopper
K which I have examined in court, is a vicious weapon and it can cause K
serious bodily harm. The defendant did not use the weapon to strike the
L L
victim once. He struck him again. As a result, the victim suffered injuries
M to his ear and chest. M
N N
21. I have looked at the photo album which depicts the wounds of
O the defendant. There was a deep cut to the outer part (helix) to his left ear. O
The photo showing the injury is rather gruesome, and Mr Tracy accepted
P P
that it was a serious wounding. There was also a wound to the victim’s
Q chest though it appears to be not very serious. Q
R R
22. Fortunately, the medical report submitted by Mr Davies,
S S
Counsel for the prosecution, revealed that the on the day of admission,
T
“Wounds were managed by suturing under local anesthesia, regular T
dressing, analgesia and antibiotics. He was last seen in plastic surgery
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
outpatient on 8/1/2024 with all wounds healed without significant scarring
C problem.” C
D D
23. As stated in Chan Chun Tat, “…deterrence and denunciation
E are always important when there is resort to violence…”. Here, a deterrent E
sentence is called for. Having considered all the circumstances of the case,
F F
I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.
G G
24. The defendant is a Form 8 holder. Mr Tracy considered that
H H
if the court was minded to enhance the sentence, it should only be 1 or 2
I months. I
J 25. In HKSAR v Ali Saif CACC 309/2017, the Hon Macrae VP J
said:
K K
“17. … Form 8 recognizance holders, whose non-
refoulement applications may take several years to deal with,
L L
must be firmly discouraged from becoming involved in
serious crimes, whilst their applications are being
M processed.” M
N N
1
26. In HKSAR v Singh Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274 , it was
O said that there are two principles underlying the amount of enhancement O
where the accused is a Form 8 recognizance holder, namely denunciation
P P
of criminal activity by Form 8 holders, and deterrence of all Form 8 holders
Q Q
from committing crimes while they enjoy the freedom to live in Hong
R
Kong as they await resolution of their claims 2. R
S S
T T
1
Paragraphs 38 - 44
2
See: Sentencing in Hong Kong, 11 th Edition, Cross & Cheung, page 24
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
27. In light of the aforesaid, I enhance the sentence, for the
C defendant’s status as a Form 8 holder, by 3 months to 21 months’ C
imprisonment.
D D
E 28. The defendant indicated his plea of guilty immediately after E
the charge was amended from a wounding 17 offence to a wounding 19
F F
offence. As such, he is entitled to a one-third discount for
G sentence. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to 14 months’ imprisonment. G
H H
29. There are no other valid mitigating factors which can further
I reduce the sentence. I
J J
30. The defendant is sentenced to 14 month’s imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
( Wong Sze-lai, Lily )
N N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V