判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment states that Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent and one count of wounding under the Offences against the Person Ordinance after an assault on a public figure at an election campaign booth. On 6 November 2019, Defendant approached the victim’s pavement stall during rush hour, presented flowers and feigned support before producing a 33 cm knife under the pretext of photographing the victim and stabbing him in the chest. When the victim’s bodyguard intervened, Defendant clung to the blade and inflicted further chest and forearm injuries. The attack was captured on video and police later recovered a second knife in Defendant’s bag. CCTV footage revealed that Defendant had surveilled the booth on 4 and 5 November and purchased the flowers six minutes before the attack. Medical reports documented lacerations, hematoma and minor bone fracture for the primary victim, and a laceration and abrasion for the bodyguard, both of whom were treated and discharged promptly. A clinical psychologist reported transient fear and hypervigilance in the primary victim, who eventually recovered. Defendant, aged 31, educated to university level, unemployed and of clear record apart from a past mood disorder, received concurrent sentences of nine years and twenty-seven months’ imprisonment. Defense counsel argued that the minor actual harm and limited psychological impact did not warrant a top-end starting point and cited comparative politically motivated wounding decisions. The prosecution maintained that the assailant’s intent and unprovoked nature of the attack on a public figure justified the sentence. Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the wounding with intent sentence was refused.
The judge applied the established sentencing framework for wounding with intent under section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, emphasizing that the gravamen of the offence is the deliberate intent to inflict really serious bodily harm – the same mens rea as murder – and that actual injuries are of secondary significance. He cited case law prescribing a usual sentencing range of three to twelve years’ imprisonment.
The judge noted that the assault fell at the top of the usual three-to-twelve-year range due to Defendant’s solitary and unprovoked targeting of a public figure, meticulous planning and reconnaissance, procurement of flowers to distract the victim, and carriage of two large-bladed knives. Defendant’s persistence in holding the blade and causing further harm when subdued by the bodyguard was aggravating. He observed that the non-fatal outcome and limited psychological sequelae were fortuitous and that a major deterrent sentence was required, mitigated by a one-quarter discount for the guilty plea entered after the alternative count was added.
The judge concluded that a twelve-year starting point for the wounding with intent count was appropriate and not manifestly excessive in principle. He held that the sole ground of appeal was not reasonably arguable, refused leave to appeal, and reminded Defendant of the potential consequences of unsuccessfully renewing the application.
Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment for the count of wounding with intent and twenty-seven months’ imprisonment for the count of wounding, resulting in an effective total custodial sentence of nine years.
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書