COURT: This is a very sad and tragic case. Through no fault really of his own, the victim lost his life. His family has lost a father, a husband and he only started working with the defendant a few days prior to his death.
Throughout the trial, the focus has been on the defendant. However, at this stage, I am allowed to say very positively that from the facts that have emerged, the victim had done nothing wrong to invite this sort of violence against him. To suffer the injuries that he did prior to his death.
The jury has found the defendant guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
I have called for both a psychiatric and a psychological report on the defendant because I was trying to understand how someone of the defendant’s background could suddenly be so enraged as to get a chopper and nearly chop up the head of the victim. As Ms Lam, the clinical psychologist noted in paragraph 24 of her report, the defendant is not a stereotypical violent offender who is criminal-minded and antisocial. He, from what you can see from his background, is a social person and at times even kind-hearted to friends and family.
However, she also noted that he used to have unpredictable and sporadic violent outbursts and her conclusion is that the defendant is at a high risk of violent recidivism because in a heightened state of anger and anxiety, he could possibly cause serious harm to acquaintances living or working with him and her view is that from a risk management point of view the defendant should be kept away from easy access to sharp objects like potential weapons. And her recommendation is that the defendant has to be treated for anger management, assertiveness, and conflict resolution. However, she offered a glimmer of hope in that she says that the defendant himself indicated a motivation for treatment.
The visiting psychiatrist Dr Amy Liu in Siu Lam also wrote a report and in her report in many ways her conclusion was that when she interviewed the defendant, the defendant showed a definite ability of restraining himself from talking too much about the attack on the victim. It was her opinion that it reflected that the defendant could indeed exert self-control when he chose to do so.
She indicated a similar opinion as Ms Lam, the clinical psychologist, that she worries that in his treatment of the victim that build-up of perceived grudges against the victim within days and a lack of warning signs before he committed this extreme violence. And as she said in paragraph 35 of her report that the defendant’s lack of empathy towards the deceased could not be explained by apathy which means lack of feeling or emotion.
She concluded to quite the opposite. He still expressed grievances, ie emotions against the deceased. So in her concluding paragraph, she says that the high degree of unpredictability, the quick escalation of grievances and violence, limited remorse and lack of empathy or even ongoing grievance against the victim all pointed to a very high risk of violence.
Dr Liu says that the defendant is regarded as posing definite danger to the general public until his risk could be reduced by training and rehabilitation in correctional settings, so she recommends that the defendant be given regular psychiatric outpatient review which could be provided by her as far as necessary. And Dr Sarina Lam says similarly that she would recommend treatment as early as possible to maximise the benefit and consolidation.
So it is a very difficult case to sentence. The sentence not only has to reflect the criminality of the offence, the background, the special background of the defendant and also to protect the community as Dr Liu was of the opinion he has a high risk of violence if his condition goes untreated and this treatment has to be in a Correctional Service setting, away from sharp objects.
The defendant had from the beginning did admit to manslaughter but it was not accepted by the prosecution understandably in the circumstances. So as the jury has found him guilty of manslaughter, he is therefore entitled to the one-third discount. Also to his credit is the fact that after he had attacked the victim, he did stay at the scene and telephone for help and admitted to the police his role in this crime.
So I have considered all the background, the facts of the case, and I consider that the starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment is appropriate but because of the defendant’s plea and all that I have mentioned, I am giving him the full one-third discount and so I reduce the sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment.
My only hope is that the defendant will, as he had promised Dr Lam, that he will continue and accede and accept the treatment that he will be offered by both psychiatrist and psychologist.