In the evening on 27 November 2019, when the victim came out of the lift on the ground floor of his residential carpark, the defendant threw some concentrated sulphuric acid (acidity of 80 to 98 per cent) at the victim’s face and body. Due to the excruciating pain, the victim sought assistance from a nearby convenience store. CCTV installed at the carpark captured the defendant’s misdeed.
The defendant surrendered himself to the police on 29 November 2019. He admitted to the police that he was instructed by the victim’s wife who in turn told him that the victim had an extramarital affair and did not give her money. The defendant and the victim’s wife met at work and became lovers.
The victim suffered 3 per cent chemical burn in his head, neck, upper body and upper limbs. His eyes also sustained injuries. The victim stayed in hospital for almost a month. He was discharged almost a month later.
A victim impact report was obtained on 22 February 2021. Physically, the victim needed to dress in pressure clothing from head, face to his upper body. Clinical findings indicated that the victim was still suffering from serious depressive and post-traumatic syndromes. He could not sleep till sunrise and had nightmares, panic attack, intrusive thoughts and suicidal ideas. He was permanently deformed with burning scars covering his face and body. The injuries from the attack were very severe both physically and psychologically. Needless to say, those effects had affected his employment significantly and adversely. In my view, his life is completely ruined. It is also difficult to envisage how the victim can possibly return to his former employment without substantial loss of income.
The defendant is 31 and has a clear record. He worked as a chef prior to his arrest. He lived with his mother. Mitigating letters were provided to this court, and I understand the mother’s desire to ask for leniency from this court. Provided to me is also an apology letter from the defendant. I will pass your letter to the victim in due course.
There are no sentencing guidelines for this particular offence. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
This was a planned premeditated attack with the intention of causing permanent disfigurement to the victim’s face, head and body. The attack was a vicious one. Words cannot adequately describe the immense sufferings inflicted onto the victim.
Mr Justice McWalters in the HKSAR v Lau Ching Him, CACC 271/2016, unreported, judgment dated 30 March 2017 gave a very detailed analysis on factors affecting the sentence in relation to this particular offence and the sentencing rationale behind it. He also looked into past sentences and made a brief summary of injuries sustained by the victims in those cases and the sentences imposed on those defendants.
Given the permanent disfigurement and the almost, in my view, unhealable psychological harms caused to the victim, I am of the view that a starting point of 15 years is warranted. The defendant will be given his usual one-third discount for his plea. In not giving the defendant more, I bear in mind that the defendant has given a non-prejudicial statement to the police, implicating the victim’s wife. In this particular case, without the defendant’s testimony in court, the provision of simply a non-prejudicial statement, in my view, is practically useless. Its uselessness is because the defendant under caution had already disclosed the identity of the mastermind behind to the police. If the defendant testifies in the future, or as a result of his non-prejudicial statement, the victim’s wife pleads guilty to the charge, whether a substantial one or an inchoate offence, no doubt the Court of Appeal will take that into account.
The defendant voluntarily surrendered himself to the police two days later. For that he would be given a 3 months’ discount.
For the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 9 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.