COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. The victims of the two counts are the defendant’s wife and elder daughter respectively.
The facts that he admitted can be summarised as follows.
The defendant and his wife, Madam Poon, lived together; occasionally, their elder daughter, Madam Ho, would stay over. The defendant has long harboured the suspicion that Madam Poon has an extra-marital affair and that Madam Ho is not his biological daughter.
It was Madam Poon’s birthday on 19 March 2023 and Madam Ho stayed with her parents at their residence on that day. When it came to bedtime, the defendant slept in his bedroom and Madam Poon and Madam Ho slept in Madam Poon’s bedroom without locking the bedroom door.
Whilst sleeping, both Madam Poon and Madam Ho suddenly felt heat and pain on their faces. Madam Poon felt so painful that she could not open her eyes. Madam Ho woke up and saw the defendant holding a chopper at the door of the bedroom. Madam Ho saw blood on Madam Poon’s body. Madam Ho asked the defendant “not to do it” but the defendant chopped Madam Ho with the chopper. Madam Ho blocked it with both hands and a struggle ensued for around five seconds during which the defendant had chopped Madam Ho’s head once or twice.
The defendant was grumbling during the struggle and the chopper fell onto the ground. Madam Ho then snatched the chopper and locked herself and Madam Poon inside the defendant’s bedroom. A report to the police was made. The police arrived shortly and located the defendant at the main door of the residence.
Under arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that he had poured hot water on his wife and daughter. In his subsequent video-recorded interview under caution, he admitted these. He felt disturbed and angry as he suspected Madam Poon had an affair and Madam Ho was not biologically his. He poured hot porridge on Madam Poon’s head and chopped her right shoulder with the chopper that he fetched from the kitchen. Madam Ho woke up and struggled with him and he had probably chopped Madam Ho as well. He did not think about the consequences when he committed the offences but he had intended to wound Madam Poon and Madam Ho since the year before. He did not have any proof that Madam Ho was not his. The chopper the police seized in this case is one with a 16-centimetre blade.
Both Madam Poon and Madam Ho sustained injuries and were hospitalised for nine days. Upon admission to the hospital, Madam Poon was found to have 4-centimetre laceration over her temporal region requiring suturing; 5-centimetre transverse wound at the left dorso-ulnar distal forearm with 1-centimetre x 1-centimetre fascia break with fracture; 3 per cent of Madam Poon’s total body surface area had second degree burn wound over face, chin and forehead; and Madam Ho was found to have: 8-centimetre full thickness linear laceration at the central frontal scalp; 5-centimetre partial thickness linear laceration at the left high parietal scalp; 3-centimetre superficial laceration at the left posterior neck; 6-centimetre longitudinal cut wound over posterior left distal arm; 1-centimetre laceration over 2-centimetre anterior chest; and total of about 5 per cent total body surface area second degree burn over face, neck anterior chest and right upper limb. Computer tomography of the brain was done showing two fracture sites noted at the outer table of the left frontal bone without involving the inner table.
Antecedent Statement and Criminal Record
Based on the antecedent statement of the defendant prepared by the officer-in-charge dated 23 July 2024 and the submissions by his counsel Mr Yu, the background information of the defendant are these.
The defendant was 73 years old at the time of offence, now almost 75. He is educated up to Primary 6 level. He did not have any previous criminal convictions. Before coming to Hong Kong in 1993, he lived on the Mainland. He has all along been in gainful employment. He was a cleansing worker at the time of the offences.
The defendant and his wife married in 1972 for some 53 years and had good marital relationship until around 10 years ago when the defendant started suspecting his wife of having an extra-marital affair and that Madam Ho was not biologically his. He had engaged a private detective to investigate without any implicating evidence unearthed. He had performed a genetic test but the report confirmed that Madam Ho was biologically related to him yet he believed that the report was wrong.
Mitigation
In mitigation, Mr Yu submitted on behalf of the defendant five letters written by Madam Poon, Madam Ho, the defendant’s son, the defendant’s daughter-in-law and the defendant’s younger daughter. I have read them all. Suffice it to say that they all confirmed that the defendant is a gentle, loving, caring, hardworking and responsible father and husband, and that they suggested that the defendant had committed the offences because of his mental illness. Madam Poon and Madam Ho have forgiven the defendant and are willing to reunite with the defendant. They also confirmed that they have physically recovered from the injuries and have resumed normal life. This fact is consistent with the assessment of the clinical psychologists in their victim’s impact reports.
Mr Yu urged the court to obtain psychiatric reports to look into the defendant’s mental condition. Two have been obtained in respect of the defendant as a result. Both Dr Lui Sing-heung and Dr Lam Ho-yin, visiting psychiatrists, Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, are of the expert opinion that the defendant is fit to plead and he is suffering from delusional disorder, marked by persistent delusional beliefs which is a mental illness. The defendant does not respond well to psychiatric treatment received since the offences. The defendant has active psychotic symptoms and risk of violence against others in the community. They both recommended the defendant to be committed to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for an unspecified period. Mr Yu confirmed that the defendant understood the reports and that the defendant does not oppose to the psychiatrists’ recommendation.
The offences that the defendant has committed are serious ones. They were committed out of the defendant’s mental illness. Having considered the psychiatrists’ opinion, I am satisfied that their recommendation of a hospital order for an unspecified period is appropriate. I so order and the defendant is to be committed to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. The Mental Health Review Tribunal will regularly review his progress. Hopefully, with proper treatment, his mental condition will be improved and can reunite with his family one day.