Coram: Norley-John, J.
Date of Judgment: 27th January, 1977.
1. The appellant was found guilty together with another person of two offences namely wounding contrary to Section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 and also assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to Section 39 of the same Ordinance. The appellant originally appealed against conviction and sentence relating to those offences but when he appearedbefore me he abandoned his appeal against his conviction and restricted his appeal to one against the sentences imposed namely 9months imprisonment on the 1st charge of wounding and 3 months imprisonment on the 2nd charge of assault both sentences to be servedconsecutively and the ground of his appeal was that the sentences were too severe.
2. The appellant who appeared in person merely begged for pardon stating that this was his first offence and he would never commit suchoffences again. That if he went to prison for 12 months there would be no one to lock after his pregnant wife and the family. Fromwhat the appellant said to me I doubt very much if I would have interfered with the sentences passed by the learned magistrate. However,I am much indebted to Counsel for the Crown, as should the appellant be, for calling my attention to certain mitigating factors.Counsel informed me that the appellant was not a criminal type but a respectable family man aged 33 years with a clear record whohad lived in Hong Kong for 8 years. That the offences arose out of a family dispute and that the victims entered uninvited into theappellant’s home, that although the appellant wounded one victim with a chopper the act was committed when the appellant’s temperwas at a great heat as a result of a very passionate incident. In spite of this and having been sorely provoked and everybody’s emotionsrunning high the appellant only struck the victim one blow with a chopper. The victim had fully recovered. As to the assault charge,a hockey stick had been used but that the person who took part in this assault with the appellant had only been fined $1,500.
3. All these circumstances however do not excuse the appellant’s conduct, but taking such cirsumstances into consideration, the atmosphereprevailing at the time, the appellant’s good character and his obvious remorse, I have decided to allow the appeal to the extentthat the sentences of 9 months be reduced to one of 3 months and the sentence of 3 months be reduced to one of 1 month and that thosesentences should run concurrently.
Appellant in person.
M.S. Sharwood, for the Crown/respondent