HKSAR v. CHEUNG WAI MAN

HCCC 159/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 159 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. The facts of the case is quite sad in that the defendant, who is now age 68, was living with his wife and younger daughter in the Shek Lei Estate at the material time. He had all along been a law-abiding citizen and has a clear record.

On 29 July 2023, the defendant’s elder daughter visited the flat and stayed for one night. On the following day, the elder daughter of the defendant then saw the defendant sitting on a sofa pointing the blade of a pair of scissors towards his own abdomen. The matter was reported to the police.

When the police arrived, it was found that the defendant was emotional because he had just heard the news that his wife was contemplating a divorce from him. And he also at that time upon seeing the police asked them to leave or he would kill himself. And the matter became very tense. And after the police and his daughter left the flat, the defendant had closed the door but had opened the door a few times holding a chopper and a bottle of drain cleaner, saying he was intending to commit suicide.

Forcible entries were attempted by the fire services officers who had arrived at the scene. And upon the seventh attempt to break open the door, the door was suddenly opened, and liquid were poured towards the two firemen who were standing at the door. At the same time, Senior Fireman 16622, Mr Chan, felt immediate pain at his right forearm, his left shoulder and right thigh, which were in contact with the liquid. Fireman 19437, Mr Yip, got injured in his right hand and left leg. Both were subsequently sent to the hospital for treatment.

And at about 7.21 pm, the defendant suddenly came out of the flat and poured a bottle of drain cleaner towards the police who were outside the flat, and then he returned to the flat. But fortunately, no police officers were injured. And finally, at about 7.38 pm, the defendant came out of the flat and asked to see his daughter. And as he was not holding any weapon at the time, he was subdued and handcuffed by the police and was arrested for the offence of wounding.

Medical examination of Senior Fireman Mr Chan revealed blisters over his left shoulder, his right thigh and his right forearm. He was granted sick leave for about five days. Fireman Mr Yip had fortunately less than one per cent of chemical burn over his left wrist, and no blister was noted.

The defendant, after his arrest, under caution, admitted that he had caused the injuries and that he was very apologetic to have injured the two fire officers.

Upon a chemical examination of the liquid seized from the flat, it was found to be sulphuric acid with a high concentration, which is highly corrosive and capable of causing severe burns to the skin and permanent damage to the eyes.

Now, in mitigation, Mr Leung had said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. The defendant was born in the mainland and was educated up to primary 3. He had been in Hong Kong working since 1979. The defendant married his wife, who gave birth to two daughters, and unfortunately the younger daughter was born with moderate intellectual disability and although is aged 24 is unemployed and receives disability allowance and living at home with him.

The defendant worked in a construction site as a steel metal worker and unfortunately had to retire in 2002 due to a number of severe and chronic illnesses. And the illnesses which Mr Leung has listed out, amongst them, he had suffered from carcinoma of the stomach, and also he was diagnosed later with several other illnesses which weakened him and therefore, he could not continue with any employment.

After that, the defendant was on CSSA and also his ex-wife was working in a construction site and so was also contributing to the living expenses. The divorce proceedings with his ex-wife was completed in September 2024.

And so, this background paints a rather stark portrait of a man who had not only lost his job because of his ill health, but he also faced the breakdown of his family and thus, the result led to the present offence.

According to Mr Leung, he submitted that the defendant said that he had bought that drain cleaner, the liquid that was used for the offence, a few months before the offence for cleaning the washing machine duct and was never intended by him to commit suicide or to injure others. He said, at that time, when the two fire officers were attempting to break open the door, he had lost his sound mind and he only reacted in the hope of stopping them from entering his flat.

So, Mr Leung submitted that although the two fire officers were injured, however, it was not of a very serious nature, and so the situation was not as dire as is in some other cases.

I have also read the mitigation letters provided by the defendant’s daughters and also the defendant’s ex-wife, pleading for leniency of the court and giving the defendant a chance to rehabilitate and reunite with his 90-year-old mother, who is in a palliative care home and cannot visit the defendant in custody.

Now, as Mr Leung correctly pointed out, this is a very serious offence, and the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. The two fire services officers were innocent victims, and they were only carrying out their job. And their job at that time was try to help and save the defendant. They suffered pain and injury unnecessarily. So, of course, the court cannot be dismissive of this matter, even though the court understands fully the defendant’s rather sad background.

It is also clear, as Mr Leung submitted, and I agree, that it was a spur of the moment offence. It was never premeditated. And I also accept Mr Leung’s submission that the chance of reoffending is extremely low.

I take into account the fact that the defendant has had a clear record up to now. And looking at the facts itself, the normal starting point that I would think would be about 5 to 6 years’ imprisonment. But I do take into account, as I said, his clear record all these years, and looking at all the mitigating factors, including his low chance of reoffending and his family support, I will adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment. So, with his plea of guilty, he is entitled to a one-third discount. And therefore, his is sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.