Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wounding with intent (s17)

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. WONG YAT FUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YAT FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC324/2011

The judge's starting point of 14 years for the s17 offence was high but within the permissible exercise of judicial discretion given the brutal, group attack and life‑changing injury; however, ordering the 20‑month sentence for the s19 offence to run consecutively produced an overall term that was manifestly excessive under the principle of totality, and therefore the consecutive order was quashed and replaced with concurrency, reducing the total effective sentence to nine years and four months' imprisonment.
23 Jul 2010

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YU YAT SANG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YU YAT SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR2/2010

The Court held the District Judge's starting point of 30 months for the s17 offence was manifestly inadequate given the use of a vicious chopper, attack on sleeping and defenceless victims and wounds to vulnerable parts; proper starting point was 5 years, a 25% discount for a late guilty plea was appropriate, and in exercise of discretion the substituted sentence for charge 1 was set at 42 months to run concurrently with the 12 month sentence for charge 2 (total 42 months).
18 Nov 1992

R. v. SIT CHU NAM AND OTHERS

Citation

R. v. SIT CHU NAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC419/1992

Because the trial judge's findings were equivocal on the specific intent element required by section 17 and his reasons were consistent with the lesser offence under section 19, the convictions under section 17 were unsafe; the Court set aside the section 17 convictions and substituted convictions for wounding under section 19 while leaving the sentences undisturbed.
13 Mar 1987

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING WA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC525/1986

Although the judge's use of the applicant's inconsistent prior statements was undesirable, it did not produce a miscarriage of justice in this case; however the judge failed to address the crucial issue of specific intent for an offence under Section 17, and therefore the conviction under Section 17 could not stand and was substituted with a conviction under Section 19 (wounding).

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. WONG YAT FUNG

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YU YAT SANG

R. v. SIT CHU NAM AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING WA