HKSAR v. CHAN KWAI SANG

HCCC 267/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 267 OF 2023

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, Mr Chan, was acquitted by a unanimous jury after trial of murder and convicted of manslaughter by reason of provocation. From the very beginning and at the earliest opportunity, he had indicated an intention to plead guilty to manslaughter. The prosecution rejected this plea and proceeded with a murder charge. The jury took very little time to acquit him of murder and convict him as directed of manslaughter.

Mr Chan has never denied he strangled his daughter to death in the early hours of the morning on 7 March 2022 in her own bed. He then called and left messages for his ex-wife, the mother of the deceased and then subsequently the police. He waited for the police to arrive at his home very early that morning. He was prepared to face the consequences of his actions. He told the police under caution that he could not take it any longer, that is living with his daughter and being subjected to her abuse.

It is clear the defendant snapped under a torrent of continual physical, mental, and verbal abuse from his adult daughter over a long period of time. Members of the immediate family gave evidence as both prosecution witnesses and a defence witness of the deceased being a daughter or sister who was very difficult to live with. She abused her family constantly, night and day. Her siblings moved out to escape her. She had been diagnosed with autism, bipolar disorder, learning difficulties, and compulsive obsessive disorder, but these issues unfortunately remained untreated because she either refused or denied she needed treatment.

The jury must have accepted the evidence from the defendant’s daughter that he was a tolerant, mild-mannered, non‑confrontational man nearly 70 years old before this incident. The deceased would hoard things, forbid family to touch her things, prevent the defendant from using the toilet or bathroom, or being in the living room, or watching television, or even going to sleep in peace. She slept during the day when he was at work and was nocturnal when he tried to sleep. She was known to physically attack him when he was in bed.

On the night in question, she had kept him awake. She had hit him with an umbrella whilst he was in bed, but he did not retaliate. When he went to the toilet, she tried to prevent him using the toilet.

Earlier that day, she had had a big argument with her own mother who had had enough of her abuse and behaviour. Her own mother suggested she move out and despite not really having the means to afford it, the mother offered to pay rent for her to go and live elsewhere. In fact, the deceased did spend that day looking for premises to rent.

The family was known to the Social Welfare Department and Family Services. There had been requests by the family to rehouse the deceased or move the deceased. Her brother gave evidence that she would not have moved out unless she was happy with the accommodation offered.

There were numerous occasions over the last few years where the police were called to the family home because of verbal or physical altercations between the deceased and mainly her mother. It was on one of those occasions that the deceased was taken to hospital and seen by a psychiatrist. Although she was diagnosed with certain issues, she refused to take medication or receive treatment.

There were two experts called during the trial, one for each party. They both confirmed and agreed the defendant was suffering at the time of the offence from an adjustment disorder. It was more than likely the stress of living in close proximity with the deceased during COVID and stress from his job as a result of COVID restrictions were the root causes of his disorder. By the time he was seen by the prosecution’s expert, the defendant was no longer suffering from this disorder. His opinion was that the identified stressors in the defendant’s life had been removed, so the symptoms disappeared.

To assist with mitigation and sentence, I called for an up‑to‑date report and have been informed that the defendant is not suffering from any disorder or mental issue and is no danger to himself or anyone else.

His mental condition has been stable for over three years and he will voluntarily attend outpatient psychiatric follow-up if required to monitor him after he has his sentence.

He is now 73 years old, divorced and in contact with his son and daughter who gave evidence during the trial. I see that his family are all in court today.

Although he was divorced at the time of the offence, he was still living in the family home with his ex-wife and the deceased.

Nothing detracts from the sad fact that a woman has lost her life. The defendant has to live with the fact that he killed his own daughter and will unlikely ever be at peace again. I have considered the nature and magnitude of the provocation described by both prosecution and defence witnesses. I would say his reaction to the prolonged provocation was not out of proportion to the degree of provocation.

There are no guidelines for manslaughter. Sentences for this offence are very case specific and the offence can be committed in a great variety of circumstances. This is a tragedy for everyone involved. Although the court is under a duty to impose a punishment for unlawfully taking a life that is appropriate to the circumstances, this is one of those cases where I can temper justice with mercy.

I intend to take a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. From the very beginning, the defendant has indicated a plea to manslaughter by reason of provocation, therefore he is entitled to a one-third discount to reflect that plea.

Therefore, after a discount of 2 years and 4 months is applied to that starting point, the defendant is accordingly sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.