FUNG KAM-WING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000387/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.387 OF 1972

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	FUNG Kam-wing	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Full Court (Briggs & Leonard, JJ)

Date of Judgment: 8.7.72.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years. He appeals against that sentence.

2. The appellant had a dispute with one, Luk Kwai Luk over a game of cards. There was a scuffle and the parties were separated.

3. The appellant left the scene. But a little later he was seen near by standing on a staircase. He wanted to descend the staircase but if he had he would have encountered the victim who was at the bottom watching the appellant.

4. Intending to frighten the victim but indifferent as to whether he hit him or not, the appellant threw a glass bottle at him. Not pausing to see if he had hit the victim, he threw a second bottle. Unfortunately this second bottle hit the victim in his left eye. The bottle broke and the victim has lost the use of his left eye in consequence. The appellant gave himself up to the police at once and has never denied his part in the affair. He has expressed his regret for the grave effect of his action, which was only intended to intimidate.

5. The Trial Judge accepted these facts and based his sentence upon them.

6. We think that he paid far too much attention to the unfortunate result of the action of the appellant and not enough to the intention of the appellant when he threw the bottle. In one sense the loss of the eye of the victim was an accident. The appellant said he did not intend any such thing and the Trial Judge accepted this.

7. The appellant expressed what we consider was genuine contrition for what had occurred during the hearing of the appeal.

8. We think that 3 years is manifestly excessive and we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of three years is reduced to a sentence of 9 months. This sentence will date from the date of the conviction.

 

 

	( G.G. Briggs )
	President
	8.7.72.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Niamatullah, C.C. for Respondent