THE QUEEN v. LEE YEE HUNG

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Hunter & Penlington, JJ.A.

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hunter, J.A.:

1. Lee Yee Hung seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by H Judge Corcoran on 18th March 1988 on a charge of wounding with intent. The victim was his younger sister.

2. The medical evidence before the court showed that this woman was the victim of a frenzied attack with a beef knife. She suffered what were described as "deep lacerations" of the forehead and right elbow; from a "very deep laceration" of the left elbow with underlying nerve injury, and less serious lacerations to her neck, her right fingers and her left hand. She suffered three fractures; a fracture of the forehead, a comunited fracture of the left elbow and the fracture of the left ring finger. She had to undergo an emergency operation and considerable repair to her right elbow her right ring finger, her right middle finger, the left elbow and the left forearm. The permanent disabilities she suffered were three : first numbness and weakness of the left ring and little finger; secondly a shortened right ring finger and thirdly, numbness of the right little finger.

3. The applicant has been a drug addict for over 10 years and has a criminal record extending back over 20 years. Immediately prior to the attack he and his sister were apparently occupying the same premises. They appear to have quarrelled and he was trying to evict her. Shortly after she started to give her evidence at the trial he changed his plea one of guilty. In his reasons for sentence the judge says this :-

"I accepted that it was the result of the accused seeing the victim's distress as she gave evidence and to save her from further distress,"

that he pleaded guilty.

"It also indicated remorse".

4. In view of what the applicant has told us this morning, the judge was deceived He did not take this step to save his sister from giving evidence, nor did he feel sorry for her as he has just told us. The plea was apparently totally motivated by lack of confidence in the trial judge. The trial judge obtained a background report from a probation officer. This went into, at some length the effect of the drug addiction upon this applicant. In relation to that the judge says this :-

"This factor had some mitigative effect and without it the sentence would have been heavier".

The judge summed up his reasons in this way :-

"This was a vicious attack by the accused on the victim and clearly a substantial immediate custodial sentence was called for. Without the mitigative factors I would have imposed a sentence of around 6 years. Having regard to the mitigative factors, including the pressure of drug addiction upon the accused, I considered the appropriate sentence to be one of 3 years".

5. As we have already indicated the judge was giving the accused credit for something which was not in his mind at all. Having regard to the savagery of this attack we have seriously considered whether this is not a case where this court should not interfere, and increase this sentence. After careful consideration, we have decided not to take that course. It is sufficient to say that there is no merit whatsoever in this application. It is dismissed, and four months of the time that has elapsed between conviction and this appeal are not to count against this sentence.

Representation:

Applicant in person

I.G. Cross, Deputy Crown Prosecutor (Ag) for Crown/Respondent