立法會議員林卓廷要求律政司覆核連儂牆斬人案的刑期, 明報有此報導:
......
立法會議員林卓廷昨日去信刑事檢控專員梁卓然，斥法官郭偉健在判刑時讚揚持刀殘害他人的被告「情操高尚」、輕視以至美化被告惡行，犯下嚴重法律錯誤，量刑明顯過輕，向社會發布極為錯誤信息。 (4) It is to be remembered that the maximum sentence under section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance is life imprisonment. While one can contemplate more serious situations of wounding, we think that the present case, even taking into account the fact that it was unpremeditated and probably done in a moment of panic, should properly attract a starting point of 15 years. We note here that in HKSAR v Yuen Wai Kui, unreported, CACC 280/2004, 14 April 2005, it seems to be suggested in paragraph 21 of the judgment of this court that the range of sentences for “this kind of offence” was between 3 and 12 years. Reference is made to Cross and Cheung : Sentencing in Hong Kong (see page 527). Seen in isolation, this comment is apt to cause confusion. The learned authors make it clear only that sentences of between 3 and 12 years are common but add as Fuad VP said in Attorney General v Lam Yat Sing, unreported, CAAR 14/1992, in a passage cited by Tang JA in Yuen Wai Kui that “everything will depend so heavily on the particular facts of each case”. This must be the position and was the very point made in the decision of this court in HKSAR v Jiang Guohua, unreported, CACC 31/2005, 18 May 2005.