HKSAR v. CHOY SIN HUNG

HCCC 249/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 249 OF 2015

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: Defendant, your case is a tragedy no matter from whatever angle or direction it is viewed. That tragedy is most starkly described in your own words in the suicide note. “Every aspect is negative when On-yu is alive. It is extremely tough for the whole family. If he is gone, the whole family would have tranquillity. I don’t have a better option.” It is tragic inasmuch as there has been a needless loss of life. It is tragic inasmuch as your family has been torn apart. It is tragic inasmuch as you, a hitherto blameless and caring father who has cared for your son and supported his rehabilitation for 15 years, who has never laid a finger on him although he caused behavioural disturbance and exhibited aggression at times, and who received very favourable comments from the teachers of Hong Chi Morning Light School, had been pushed by circumstances beyond your control into a situation where you felt that the only way out for the family was to kill him. You also intended to take your own life but stopped when you suddenly became aware that you still have a younger son to take care of.

Your actions arose from an abnormality of your mind diagnosed as severe depressive episode precipitated by the childcare stress after the domestic helper you have employed to take care of your two sons left; when you had chosen to shoulder the sole burden of taking care of your elder son, the deceased, who suffered from autism, mental retardation, attention deficit disorder and severe speech difficulties in order to let your wife pursue her own career. You kept that stress and frustration to yourself. That abnormality of mind substantially impaired your mental responsibility for your acts. It was thus that your plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility was accepted by the prosecution.

According to the psychiatric reports, the following stressors around the time of the incident caused you to develop shallow sleep, poor appetite and weight loss. Your need to accompany your elder son everywhere around despite lower limb pain. You were upset by the frequently bullying and hitting of your younger son by your elder son. You were worried that the growing aggression of your elder son might turn him to hit others at the day care centre. And lastly, your sleep/wake cycle was greatly disturbed by the activities of your elder son.

On the day in question, your elder son hit a teacher at his school and you were asked to collect him from school. You accompanied him to the supermarket twice but he still exhibited mood swing and behavioural problems at home causing your younger son to be so scared that he left home. Your elder son then turned to hit you. You stabbed him to death whilst he was sleeping and afterwards, you stabbed yourself in the neck with a knife and called the police.

You have been in custody for some 25 months since the killing. You received treatment from doctors whilst in remand and that disorder is currently in remission and inpatient psychiatric treatment is not required.

This particular case on its own facts forces into spotlight the sometimes competing reasons for sentencing. On the one hand, courts do not condone the taking of human lives and we reiterate time and again our duty to protect the vulnerable. The message that parents have no right to decide whether their children should live or die is loud and clear. Those who take the lives of their children have to be punished; the sentence has to reflect public abhorrence. On the other hand, I cannot lost sight of the fact of what this defendant set out to achieve by his actions.

According to the suicide note, he was afraid that his wife and younger son would be hurt by the elder son, who was growing into a tall and big adolescent, if he passed away as he was getting old. He hoped for a better life for the rest of the family but one which he would take no part in. He was prepared to sacrifice his future life for the good of his family as a whole. So looking at the case from the perspective of the public, how would they perceive his actions? Would the man on the Clapham Omnibus, as they say in England, or the man on the Shau Kei Wan tram in Hong Kong regard him as a martyr to the needs of the family or a selfish and aggressive killer? He is clearly not the latter and he does not pose a danger to the public. Psychologist report confirms that his risk of reoffending is low, given the good family support. In my view, there is no need for individual deterrence as he is unlikely to reoffend. For all the above reasons, the level of punishment required is at the lower end of the scale.

Your son has lost his life and you have lost your son. Those who kill a loved one sentence themselves and I have no doubt that this would bring you pain for the rest of your life. I judge that 4 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate sentence in the present case. That has already taken into account your early indication to plea of a charge of manslaughter. That is the sentence I pass.