HKSAR v. NGAN WING CHAU

HCCC 105/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 105 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

The jury convicted the defendant for one count of murder, contrary to section 2 of the Offence against Persons Ordinance, and another count of preventing the lawful burial of a body against common law.

On 1 May 2016, around 6.45 pm, Madam Chan Sau-wa called her son that she would be back home for dinner. She, however, never returned home. Her son lost contact with her in the next two days. He reported her missing on 3 May 2016. About 13 days later, in the early hours of 14 May 2016, after reviewing the CCTV footages seized from the vicinity, the police decided to raid Iskra Building situated at No 132‑134 Cheung Sha Wan Road. They believed Madam Chan had entered that building sometime after 7 pm on 1 May 2016 and had not left since then.

Eventually, the police broke into Room A, rear block, 2nd Floor of the building where there were bloodstains all over. Meanwhile, another team of police officers discovered that the defendant was climbing along the iron cage outside the flat where Room A was. The defendant jumped down from the 2nd floor and was eventually subdued by the police officers at the platform of the building.

Various CCTV footages revealed that the defendant left and returned to Iskra Building several times in the late evening of 1 May 2016 and early hours of 2 May 2016. In some footages, the defendant was seen carrying a garbage bag or a suitcase. Forensic scientist, Dr Lin, analysed the bloodstains in Room A. She concluded that they belonged to Madam Chan. Dr Lin opined that Madam Chan must have been heavily bleeding when she leaned against the left armrest of a sofa in Room A. The large bloodstain with flow pattern at the inner surface of the armrest of that sofa and the spatter stain at the underside of the lower tray of a coffee table beside the sofa were concrete evidence.

There was also a blood spot on the outer surface of the defendant’s left shoe which was a mixture of blood belonging to Madam Chan and the defendant. The body of Madam Chan was never found.

The defendant was the tenant of Room A. He lived there alone. He claimed that he did not notice any bloodstain in Room A before his arrest. He told lies about his true identity and his whereabouts at the early hours of 2 May 2016. Based on the above, the jury inferred that Madam Chan had died, the defendant had killed her and disposed of her body.

The defendant is 52. He is married. His family is in mainland China. He completed primary education in China. He was convicted of offences including unlawful remaining in Hong Kong, using another’s identity card, and possession of a forged identity card in 1988, 1992, 1994 and 2010. He served various terms of imprisonment and was last released on 23 June 2011. Before this offence, he was employed as a meat cutter in a frozen meat shop at Shek Kip Mei Market.

This is a chilling case. The defendant was ruthless and calculated. He advances no mitigation today. I take it that he has no remorse. He is a repeated offender of immigration offences. His insistence that his lies were justified is repulsive and affront public moral. I have no pity on him. The CCTV surveillance system served its proper function this time. Had it not been for the perseverance of the investigation team, the defendant might have escaped detection. All this bear testimony to the old saying that justice may be slow, but it will come eventually.

For the 1st charge of murder, I sentence the defendant to be imprisoned for life. For the 2nd charge of preventing the lawful burial of a body, the defendant must have dismembered the body of Madam Chan. He did this to cover up his murderous act. The defendant disposed of the body unscrupulously, with no respect at all. This act must have caused grave emotional suffering to the family of Madam Chan. It ranks as the most serious of its kind. I sentence him to 7 years’ imprisonment. I order that both sentences to run concurrently.