CHAN TING-FAT v. THE QUEEN

CACC000740/1976

  

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
on appeal from the High Court
	1976 No. 740
	(Criminal)

  

BETWEEN:
	CHAN Ting-fat	Appellants
	HO Kwok-kei
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 21st December, 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellants were found guilty of two offences of throwing corrosive fluid with intent to burn contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. The first appellant was sentenced to ten years on each charge and the second appellant to eight years on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The two appellants, acting in concert, were responsible for very serious injuries to a young girl and her brother. The first appellant and the young girl who was injured had a sexual relationship which the latter wished to break off. On the 23rd January, 1976, the first appellant threw a plastic container full of nitric acid at the young girl who was at the time walking down the street with her brother at her side. Very serious injuries were inflicted on these two young persons and one of the victims has lost the sight of an eye. The young girl's injuries were stated by the trial judge at the trial to have been horrifying and she is marked for life.

3. It was proved at the trial that the second appellant, although he did not personally throw the acid, was present and gave support and assistance to the first appellant. It was evident that there was a triad connection between the two appellants and it was also evident that the second appellant was very close to the scene of the offence. The first appellant appealed against his sentence only. The second appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. We dismissed the appeal of the second appellant against conviction.

4. This may be said to be a particularly serious type of crime. Though, fortunately, it is rare in Hong Kong, we think that a severe and deterrent sentence is necessary. As we have said, the first appellant, who is a man of 22 years of age, was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. We think that it is a perfectly proper sentence in the circumstances of this case and we dismiss his appeal.

5. The second appellant took a minor albeit an important part in the commission of this offence. He himself did not actually throw the acid onto the two victims. In addition, and we think this is of importance, he is only 18 years old and has a clear record. We think, in the circumstances, that we should allow his appeal against sentence to the extent that the period of eight years is reduced to five years and we so order.

  

  

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

  

Representation:

Ching Y. Wong (D.L.A.) for 1st Appellant.

Alan Hoo (Raymond Tang & Co.) for 2nd Appellant.

Little for the Crown/Respondent.