If it pleases you your Honour, these are the closing submissions of

the Prosecution
Your Honour, the incident on 22nd February last year began as a
harmless exchange of words at a rowdy rugby march which then
took a wrong turn when the defendant acted out of spite and
anger and struck Mr. Ashworth with a pair of scissors, thus
injuring Mr. Ashworth. According to Mr. Los medical report on Mr.
Ashworth, the injury was grievous and permanent. Mr. Ashworth
has now a long unsightly scar and loss of ability to extend his
three middle fingers on his left hand.
Your Honour, the Defendant was acting out of anger and malice.
The Defendant was angry at Mr. Ashworth because of the
exchange of words between them. The Defendant was particularly
resentful towards Mr. Ashworth because Mr. Ashworth received a
promotion ahead of the Defendant. The Defendants assertion
that his ill-feeling in this regard was not believable, as it was in
the heated exchange of words between Mr. Ashworth and the
Defendant, when Mr. Ashworth alluded to the fact he got the
promotion instead of Mr. Chan, by saying Who would make you
CEO? You lousy, cheating, bitter loser, Mr. Chan was very angry,
and he admitted as much. In addition, the Defendant was also
very angry because Mr. Ashworth knocked off the Defendants
spectacles due to a slipping accident, and unfortunately such
incident provoked the Defendant and his unreasonable and
disproportionate actions. The Defendant was malicious towards
Mr. Ashworth, he said to Mr. Ashworth No wonder Elaine hates
you, you are such a bully specifically in order to anger and
provoke Mr. Ashworth, to remind a horrible betrayal by the
Defendant, a once friend of Mr. Ashworth by having an affair with
his wife.
Your Honour, this shows the Defendant was still angry towards Mr.
Ashworth and this was the reason for attacking Mr. Ashworth. The
Defendant struck Mr. Ashworth out of spite, resentment and
anger.

Your Honour, the Defence asserts that the Defendant is acting out
of self-defence. At common law, a person is only permitted the
use of force that is reasonable and proportional in situations to
defend himself from physical harm by another. The test for
reasonableness is objective. Further, the Defendant is not
required to retreat from the initial aggressor.
However, in light of the situation, your Honour, the defendants
action could NOT be called self-defence, nor is it reasonable or
proportional. It was a premeditated attack. Your Honour,
according to Mr. Subramanians evidence, Mr. Ashworth was one
or two metres away from the Defendant. Such was admitted by
the Defendant that he backed away two steps when Mr. Ashworth
said You know the old saying. Never hit a guy with spectacles.
You dont need to worry about that now. Indeed, the Defendant is
NOT required to retreat from the initial aggressor, but in this case,
he did retreat as he moved backward and neutralised any
perceived or alleged threat from Mr. Ashworth that he would
headbutt the Defendant. What the Defendant did afterwards, by
retrieving a pair of scissors and struck Mr. Ashworth, was not
reasonable.
In other words, your Honour, because any perceived threat by the
Defendant is neutralised by the Defendant moving backwards. It
could not be said that it was reasonable for the Defendant to
further react to any perceived threat by striking Mr. Ashworth with
a pair of scissors.
In addition, your Honour, as the Defendant stated in the crossexamination, his pair of scissors was in his shoulders bag. It would
mean that the Defendant deliberately took the time and effort to
unzip his shoulder bag, fumbled around for his pair of scissors,
retrieved it and struck the defendant. Does it make sense that
when faced with an alleged imminent threat, isnt it unnatural
that the threat was countered by a complicated set of offensive
actions? Isnt it more instinctive to hold up your arms to defend
yourself when youre about to be hit, just like Mr. Ashworth did
when the Defendant struck him with his pair of scissors, rather

than deliberately unzip your shoulder bag and retrieve a pair of

scissors?
Your Honour, this is a delayed reaction by drawing a pair of
scissors to strike Mr. Ashworth; in fact the immediate reaction to
the perceived threats from Mr. Ashworth was that the Defendant
stepped back two steps. This, your Honour, showed premeditation
and deliberation on the Defendants part to strike Mr. Ashworth.
Your Honour, coupled with the fact that the Defendant already
decided to move backwards and neutralised any perceived threat,
the use of the scissors could not be said to be of self-defence, nor
was it reasonable or proportionate in the circumstances.
Even after the incident, the Defendant was resentful towards Mr.
Ashworth when the Defendant was approached by PC, when he
was asked about Mr. Ashworth, he said He got what he
deserved.
Your Honour, a conviction under s.17 of the Offences Against the
Person Ordinance requires the Prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the Defendant maliciously and intentionally
wounded Mr. Ashworth. The Prosecution believes the burden is
satisfied. The Defendant was not acting in self-defence. He struck
Mr. Ashworth out of spite and anger with the pair of scissors,
intentionally wounding Mr. Ashworth, causing him to suffer a
grievous bodily injury.
What the evidence plainly shows is that the Defendant was struck
Mr. Ashworth out of spite and anger. He was still angry about the
promotion Mr. Ashworth got instead of him and overreacted to Mr.
Ashworths words and the unfortunate incident of Mr. Ashworth
slipping and knocking off the Defendants spectacles.
And when the Defendant moved back two steps, and by doing so
neutralises any perceived threat from Mr. Ashworth that he would
headbutt him, he went on and deliberately retrieved the scissors
from his shoulder bag and hit Mr. Ashworth with anger and malice.
This is not reasonable, and this is certainly not self-defence. This
is an act out of anger and malice.

Unless you have further questions your Honour, these are my

submissions.