COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder, contrary to Common Law and section 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The defendant and one Madam Lee became lovers in 2017. They soon lived together. In October 2021, the defendant was found to have an affair. Madam Lee decided to end the relationship and asked the defendant to move out. However, the defendant did not want to end the relationship. He, on occasions, came up to Madam Lee’s apartment for talk and demanded reconciliation. That was refused by Madam Lee.
On the day in question, namely, 29 April 2022, the defendant came to Madam Lee’s apartment again. The purpose was for him to take back his personal items. The defendant arrived at the apartment when Madam Lee was out for dinner.
When Madam Lee returned to the apartment at about 9 pm in the evening, the defendant was in the kitchen. Madam Lee then asked the defendant to come out for a talk. They had a chat in the living room. During the conversation, the defendant became emotional and grabbed the arms of Madam Lee and pressed her down with his body on top. The defendant even threatened to rape Madam Lee. Madam Lee struggled and resisted. After a brief moment, the defendant let loose of Madam Lee.
He then went into the kitchen. Soon Madam Lee heard an explosion from the kitchen and she also saw fire. The defendant then came out from the kitchen and pressed Madam Lee onto the floor. He then tried to suffocate Madam Lee with a pillow. Madam Lee struggled fiercely and yelled for help and asked the defendant to stop. She then told the defendant that she would break up with her new boyfriend. Once the defendant heard that, he stopped.
Madam Lee then told the defendant to go to the kitchen to put out the fire. By then, lots of smoke came out from the kitchen. There was also a strong smell of Towngas. Madam Lee used that opportunity to escape. A report was made to the police.
Soon, fire officers arrived, smokes filled the corridor of the apartment. Fire officers broke into the apartment and found the defendant lying unconscious on the floor. The gas pipe in the kitchen was found to be manually loosened, the gas switch was switched on.
The defendant is 43, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his arrest, he was a construction worker. He lived with his son from a previous marriage. In mitigation, a number of mitigation letters from the defendant’s son, mother, family members and friends have been produced to the court. They all plead for leniency on behalf of the defendant.
Attempted murder is a very serious offence. There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence can be committed in many ways. In HKSAR v Lee Wai Keung, CACC 230/2009, a similar case where the applicant who had attempted to kill his ex-lover by chopping her and throwing her out of the window was given a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. It was mentioned in that case:
“Some cases are more serious than others because of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the victim. Some cases are more serious by reason of the fact that the course adopted by the accused would almost inevitably have resulted in the death of the victim had there not been an intervention.”
In the present case, the injuries sustained by Madam Lee were not serious. Having said that, it is not difficult to envisage Madam Lee must be in extreme fear for her life at the time and terrified by the defendant’s attack. However, had there not been quick thinking on the part of Madam Lee, she would in my view, highly probable, have met her demise that evening.
The attempt to kill Madam Lee was premeditated. The defendant, upon entering the apartment, went to the kitchen before the return of Madam Lee. He went to the kitchen and deliberately detached the gas hose using a spanner. And Towngas started to fill the surroundings.
According to the government chemist, with the release and accumulation of the highly flammable Towngas in the kitchen, a fire/explosion occurred in consequence, resulting in damage to the apartment. What the defendant did was extremely dangerous, given the fact that the fire was set using Towngas in an apartment of a public housing estate, in the middle of the night, ie 10 pm by the time the firemen arrived.
Not only Madam Lee’s life was in jeopardy. The life and property of the residents of the public housing estate was put in serious jeopardy too.
In this case, apart from that, the setting of fire was done after threats was made to rape. Further, the defendant also tried to kill Madam Lee by strangulation. All in all, the defendant really tried to kill Madam Lee. In my view, all these circumstances greatly increased the criminalities of the defendant.
Having considered all the circumstances, a starting point of 15 years will be adopted as a starting point. The defendant only indicated his plea after the case was committed to the High Court and before a trial date was fixed. In accordance with the guidelines set out in the case HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam, CACC 418/2014, the defendant is only entitled to a 25 per cent discount.
For the sole offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, ie 11 years 3 months’ imprisonment.