Real Cases: How Hong Kong Courts Sentenced Assault and Wounding

About these case summaries: the summaries below were prepared by this site based on our own reading and understanding of the judgments. They are not legal advice, have no legal effect, and must not be cited as authority. Cases are identified by neutral citation only, without party names; read the originals via the HKLII links. Sentences turn on the totality of each case's circumstances; every figure below is what the cited case actually decided, never a prediction for any other case. Our full verification process for case content — full-text reading of every judgment, corrigendum checks and independent human review — is set out in our methodology .

A hypothetical scenario

Imagine an argument that turns into shoving; someone falls and is hurt, and by the time the police leave, someone is under arrest. The family's questions: what will the charge be, and how far apart are "common assault" and "wounding"? Hong Kong's violence offences form a ladder — common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH, "section 39"), wounding ("section 19"), and wounding with intent ("section 17") — with dramatically different sentencing ranges. Six real judgments show how each rung was sentenced in the decided cases.

The charge ladder: one case per rung

Common assault — in [2021] HKCFI 2291 (CFI magistracy appeal, 2021), a footbridge confrontation: the defendant poured beer over the victim and thrust a fruit knife towards him. The magistrate found the injury's causation unproved — so acquitted on AOABH but convicted of common assault (threat of unlawful violence) — and imposed 2 months; the judgment compares an earlier case where 6 months for common assault with scissors was upheld. Both appeals dismissed ( judgment ).

AOABH ("39") — in [2024] HKCFI 1888 (CFI magistracy appeal, 2024), against a background of marital breakdown, the defendant pinned his wife of 30 years to the floor, tore out hair and knocked her head against the floor seven or eight times (occipital haematoma). A first offender; the magistrate started at 4 months, arriving at 3 months 2 weeks. The judgment states expressly there is no sentencing guideline for AOABH — each case turns on its gravity — and that attacks to the head aggravate. Appeal dismissed ( judgment ).

Employer–helper abuse ("39") — in [2024] HKCFI 526 (CFI magistracy appeal, 2024), an employer committed five common assaults and one AOABH against her foreign domestic helper over about ten months (the last injuring the helper's left eye). Total: 4 months 2 weeks; the judgment stresses deterrence to protect FDHs, describes community service as no soft option, and observes 6 months would not have been excessive. Appeal dismissed ( judgment ).

Wounding (s. 19) — in [2024] HKCA 169 (Court of Appeal, 2024), after a row outside a convenience store, the defendant returned 15 minutes later with two men, each carrying a two-foot metal bar, and beat the victim about the head (maxillary fracture, scalp laceration). The judge observed the facts "could well be charged as the aggravated offence of wounding with intent", took a 2-year-8-month starting point, and allowed only a 25% plea discount because the defendant had absconded: 28 months. Leave to appeal refused ( judgment ).

Wounding with intent (s. 17) — the heavy end — in [2013] HKCA 169 (Court of Appeal, 2013), a husband attacked his wife, ultimately with a two-foot bread knife to the neck, inflicting about twenty wounds (13 days in hospital). The trial judge started at 12 years; the Court of Appeal, recording counsel's submission that 12 years sat "at the very top of the 3–12 years range in which most wounding cases fall", substituted an 8-year starting point → 5 years 4 months after plea ( judgment ).

Wounding with intent — the mitigated end — in [2021] HKCFI 2395 (CFI first-instance sentence, 2021), a young first offender in a domestic quarrel struck at the back of the victim's head with a small chopper (~10cm blade), stopping when his mother seized it — having himself been threatened with the same chopper earlier. The judge stated "there is no tariff for this type of offence", took 3 years 9 months as the starting point, and imposed 2 years 6 months after plea ( judgment ).

The six cases at a glance

What moved sentences in these cases

• Weapons: the gap between bare hands and a knife or metal bar was decisive; in the common assault case, brandishing a knife was enough for immediate custody for the conduct involved.
• Target: [2024] HKCFI 1888 states head-targeted violence aggravates.
• Premeditation and numbers: leaving and returning with armed backup ([2024] HKCA 169) pushed the case toward the higher charge.
• Victim vulnerability: the helper-abuse case emphasises deterrence where an employer abuses their position.
• No tariff ≠ no structure: neither AOABH nor s. 17 has a formal guideline, but these judgments show courts working along a gravity spectrum — s. 17 running from about 2½ years (mitigated) to sentences measured in many years.

If you or a family member is arrested

• Rights on arrest: rights if arrested ; bail: bail guide .
• The Duty Lawyer Scheme covers Magistrates'-level cases; s. 17 is generally tried higher — see legal aid .
• Charge selection (common assault vs "39" vs wounding) rests with the prosecution on the medical evidence and can shift as evidence develops — one reason to engage a criminal solicitor early.