|
HCCC 75/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 75 OF 2015
-----------------
-----------------
| Date: |
16 February 2016 at 10.01am |
| Present: |
Mr Michael J B Arthur, on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Arthur Luk, SC, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, for the accused |
| Offence: |
Manslaughter (誤殺)s |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Ruling in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: The defendant claimed that his wife was being held hostage by a creditor “Y” who had threatened to harm her and their son should he fail to repay the loan $1.1 million on that day, that is 4 April 2014. As he was concerned for their safety and in a desperate attempt to get some money to repay Y, the defendant soaked a towel with thinner to render his mother-in-law unconscious in order to get two expensive watches from her. He did not divulge to the police such an incident as he was threatened by Y to mind what he said after Y learned of what the defendant had done to his mother-in-law.
In a hearing, I first heard evidence from the defendant and then from his wife regarding this aspect of the case. I remind myself that the defendant only has to show on a balance of probabilities that what he and his wife had said were true.
Having considered their evidence, I accept that the defendant was told by Y at the time that should he fail to repay, harm will be done to his wife, that is, to collect her corpse. I accept that the defendant was really worried about the safety of his wife at the time. I accept the evidence of the defendant’s wife which does have a ring of truth about it.
I accept that she was slapped by Y and she could not help but cry when she heard the defendant’s voice over the phone. I accept that the defendant’s wife was not allowed to leave at the beginning and was effectively being held hostage until she was allowed to leave later. I accept at the time, believing that Y meant what he had said, the defendant resorted to rob his mother-in-law by rendering her unconscious, never expecting that she would eventually die as a result. I accept the reason given by the defendant for not telling the police about this incident at all and for his wife not disclosing the same to the police either.
I do bear in mind that the defendant was originally charged with murder and there was no evidence that the defendant had used this incident to bargain with the prosecution to accept a lesser charge of manslaughter.
The first time reference was made to this incident was during mitigation after the defendant had pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of the amended charge of manslaughter.
Although at first blush, the defendant’s assertion, that is he thought telling the court about this incident was not the same as reporting to the police, sounds unreal, having considered the fact that the defendant had never been in trouble before and this is the first time he gave evidence in court, I accept his explanation that he was merely telling the court what made him do what he did on that fateful day.
|