HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIE CHUNG

HCCC 37/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 37 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

A. Charge

1.  The Defendant Cheung Kie-chung was charged with one count of Murder, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  The Defendant offered to plead guilty to Manslaughter by reason of Diminished Responsibility and the Prosecution accepted the plea upon considering relevant psychiatric assessments on the Defendant.

3.  The Defendant formally pleaded guilty to the lesser count of Manslaughter by reason of Diminished Responsibility before me and I found him guilty of Manslaughter after he admitted to the summary of facts.

B. Summary of Facts

B(i). Background

4.  The Defendant and Madam Chan Wai-man (the ‘Deceased’), both aged 53 years in August 2018, were husband and wife.  At that time, the couple and their two grown up children, Nancy and Scot, resided at Room 1601 on the 16^th Floor of Wei Lun Hall, a residential hall of the University of Hong Kong (the “University”)  situated at No. 6, Sassoon Road in Pokfulam(the “Flat”).  The Defendant was then a warden of Wei Lun Hall.

5.  At all material times, the Defendant was an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Engineering at the University.  His office was at Room 7-5 on the 7^th Floor of Haking Wong Building at the University (“Room 7-5”).

6.  In August 2018, the Deceased’s younger sister Tracy and Tracy’s daughter were visiting Hong Kong.  They stayed at the Flat and slept on the sofa in the living room.

B(ii). Events around the day of the Killing

7.  On 16^th August 2018, the Deceased and Tracy went to a branch of the DBS Bank and met with its manager Mr. Chiu.  The Deceased opened an account, and was told by Mr. Chiu that she could earn a cash rebate by using one more name to open an account.  The Deceased then talked to the Defendant over the phone in a pressing manner, and told Mr. Chiu to meet with the Defendant at the University to discuss the opening of an account under the Defendant’s name.  Mr. Chiu did as told and met with the Defendant that afternoon, but their meeting was terminated at the request of the Defendant, who was then busy. 

8.  After visiting the DBS Bank, the Deceased and Tracy went to a branch of Citibank, where its sales assistant Mr. Lee assisted the Deceased in opening an account, into which the Deceased deposited a HK$4 million cheque which was payable to her and was drawn upon the Defendant’s personal savings account (the “HK$4 million Cheque”). 

9.  Later that evening in the Flat, Nancy had an argument with the Deceased over the cleaning of a toilet seat at their home.  The Defendant was present during the argument but did not say anything.  He then left for a meeting.

10.  Nancy left the Flat shortly before the Defendant’s return at around 11:30 p.m.  Learning that Nancy had left, the Defendant went into the bedroom to join the Deceased.

B(iii). The Killing

11.  On or about 17^th August 2018, the Defendant killed the Deceased by strangulation inside their bedroom in the Flat.

12.  At that time, Tracy and her daughter were staying on the sofa in the living room, whereas Scot was in his own bedroom.  Tracy could look into the bedroom of the Defendant and Deceased from the living room.  The bedroom was quiet.  She saw the couple lying on the bed, with both their backs facing the door, and the Defendant’s body was seemingly pressing against that of the Deceased.  Tracy then stopped looking and laid on the sofa.

13.  Soon afterwards, the Defendant came out to turn off the lamp for Tracy, although that was usually done by the Deceased.  He told Tracy that he would turn on a lamp on the floor for her.  Tracy fell asleep at around 12:30 a.m. on 17^th August 2018, and did not notice any peculiar sound while she was sleeping.

B(iv). Post-killing Conduct of the Defendant

14.  On the morning of 17^th August 2018, Tracy could not find the Deceased in the Flat.  On his own volition, the Defendant told her that the Deceased had gone out.  He took Tracy to the couple’s bedroom for a look.  He told Tracy that he did not know when the Deceased had left home, as he was sleeping.

15.  On 18^th August 2018, the Defendant purchased 8 wooden boards from a timber shop in Sai Wan.  He constructed a box (the “Wooden Box”)  with those wooden boards and placed the Deceased’s body inside it.

16.  On 19^th August 2018, the Defendant sent 2 messages to the Deceased’s mobile phone, namely ‘Hello’ and ‘How are you?’  He also told Tracy that he had an argument with the Deceased on the night of 16^th August 2018, after Nancy had left the Flat.  He said he blamed the Deceased for driving Nancy away, whereas the Deceased blamed him for not mediating between Nancy and her and further said that she would not take care of the Flat anymore.

17.  On 20^th August 2018, the Defendant and Nancy made a missing person report in respect of the Deceased.  During Police enquiries on 21^st August 2018, the Defendant lied to the officers that a female wearing a blue backpack appearing in Wei Lun Hall in the morning on 17^th August 2018, as captured by CCTV, was the Deceased.  The Defendant further showed the officers a photograph of a blue backpack from his mobile phone.

18.  On 21^st August 2018, the HK$4 million Cheque deposited by the Deceased into her newly opened Citibank account on 16^th August 2018 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the Defendant’s account. 

19.  On 22^nd August 2018, the Defendant transported the Wooden Box containing the body of the Deceased from Wei Lun Hall to his office at Haking Wong Building of the University.  The Wooden Box was covered by a blue cloth with a microwave oven and a stove on top.  He pushed it from the carpark of Wei Lun Hall to a light goods vehicle ordered by him that morning.  He was seen by a Police officer.  When being asked about contents of the Wooden Box, the Defendant lied to the officer that it contained orientation camp items to be moved to the University for temporary storage. 

20.  The driver of the hired light goods vehicle dropped off the Defendant and the Wooden Box near Haking Wong Building.

21.  On 23^rd August 2018, the Defendant purchased another 6 wooden boards from the same timber shop in Sai Wan.

22.  During subsequent Police enquiries, the Defendant falsely claimed that he had used the wooden boards, which he purchased from the timber shop, to construct a box for containing and transporting materials left outside the Flat after a robot competition to Room M02 of Haking Wong Building.  He claimed that he had, after delivering the materials to Room M02, dismantled the box.

23.  To buttress his lie about having dismantled the Wooden Box, the Defendant placed the additional wooden boards which he purchased from the timber shop on 23^rd August 2018 outside Room M02.

24.  On 25^th August 2018, when being asked by the Police where he had hidden his wife, the Defendant denied having done so.

B(v). Discovery of the Deceased’s Body

25.  On 28^th August 2018, the Police went to the Defendant’s office at Room 7-5 for further investigation. 

26.  In the Defendant’s presence, the officers searched Room 7-5 and found the Wooden Box underneath a table.  The Wooden Box was about 94 cm x 62 cm x 49 cm in size.  It was made of wooden boards fixed with screws, edges treated with white sealant and the inside laminated with white Formica.

27.  When asked what the Wooden Box contained and whether the Deceased’s body was inside, the Defendant said, ‘Now that you find the box, you would know without me telling you’.

28.  Inside the Wooden Box was found a suitcase, which was taken from the Flat, containing the Deceased’s body.  Around the Deceased’s neck was a length of electric wire twisted with the left shoulder strap of her brassiere.

B(vi). Arrest of the Defendant

29.  On 28^th August 2018, the Defendant was arrested for the offence of murder in relation to the present case.

B(vii). Cause of Death of the Deceased

30.  An autopsy was performed on the Deceased by Forensic Pathologist Dr. Lam Wai-kwok on 30^th August 2018.

31.  Dr. Lam made the following comments: -

(1)  a ligature in the form of two rounds of electric wire was found encircling the Deceased’s neck, with a twist knot on left back of the neck. Autopsy revealed a ligature mark completely encircled the neck with a knot mark on left back of neck, and marked facial congestion above the ligature mark. These findings were compatible with a death due to pressure on the neck as a result of ligature strangulation;

(2)  the mechanism of a death due to pressure on the neck is by occlusion of the blood vessels of the neck, obstruction of the airway, and probably by stimulation of the nervous system resulting in interference of the cardiac function; and

(3)  toxicological analysis showed no significant finding for organic volatile compounds, common drugs and poisons.

32.  Dr. Lam concluded that the Deceased’s cause of death was “pressure on the neck”.

33.  When the Deceased’s body was examined, wires encircling her neck had no visible loose ends and were tucked into the knot.  Forensic Scientist Dr. Tam Cheok-ning examined the wires removed from the neck of the Deceased, and opined that the twisting and breaking of the wires could have been done with a clamping tool such as a pair of pliers.

B(viii). IOU Note

34.  The Police seized from the bedroom of the Defendant and the Deceased an IOU Note dated 31^st May 2018.  It stated that the Defendant owed the Deceased a sum of HK$6.7 million, and repayment had to be made on 31^st May 2018 by a post-dated cheque.  In the event of default, the amount due would become HK$7.7 million.

35.  A cheque of HK$6.7 million payable to the Deceased was drawn on the Defendant’s personal account.  It was not deposited.

B(ix). Defendant’s Psychiatric and Psychological Condition

36.  Prior to this offence, the Defendant was not known to the mental health service.

37.  Reports from two specialist psychiatrists have been obtained and they are now placed before the Court, namely: -

(a)  the report of Dr. Siu Wei-man, Bonnie, former Consultant and Chief of Service, Department of Forensic Psychiatry of Castle Peak Hospital and Visiting Consultant Psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, dated 23^rd October 2020, prepared at the request of the Police. In preparing her report, Dr. Siu had interviewed the Defendant at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on 7 occasions between 24^th September 2020 and 22^nd October 2020. Dr. Siu also interviewed his children and colleague; and

(b)  the report of Dr. Ho Mei-yee, Robyn, Specialist in Psychiatry in private practice, dated 4^th August 2020, prepared at the request of the Defence. In compilation of her report, Dr. Ho interviewed the Defendant at the Stanley Prison on 23^rd April 2020 and 7^th May 2020 for a total of 9 hours and 35 minutes. Dr. Ho also interviewed his children, colleagues and friends.

38.  Both psychiatrists support the defence of diminished responsibility in the present case.  Their reports identified the Defendant’s sources of stress, including work stress and his interactions with the Deceased.

39.  Dr. Siu made a psychiatric diagnosis that the Defendant had been suffering from moderate to severe depression around the time of the killing. She observed that the Defendant had prominent symptoms of depression including depressed mood, increased irritability and decreased capacity in decision-making, which substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgement.  Among his symptoms of depression, agitation was prominent which substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control.  In conclusion, the Defendant was then suffering from an abnormality of mind, arising from depressive episode of moderate to severe severity, which had substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgement and exercise self-control.  His mental responsibility was therefore substantially impaired.

40.  Dr. Ho was also of the opinion that, at the time of the killing, the Defendant was suffering from an abnormality of the mind, namely Major Depressive Disorder, at least mild episode, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts.

41.  Dr. Sammy Cheng, a clinical psychologist in private practice engaged by the Defence, interviewed the Defendant on 25^th May 2020 and 1^st June 2020 for a total of 11 hours.  He also interviewed his children and colleagues.

42.  Dr. Cheng was of the opinion that the Defendant was a victim of chronic psychological abuse by the Deceased, who had regularly insulted him, attacked his personality, humiliated and belittled him in front of their family relatives since 2012.  The Defendant’s emotional control had been weakened at least for several years before the incident.  The suspected causes included his increased workload, physical illness and the constant criticism and persistent interferences in his daily activities from the Deceased.

B(x). Unlawful Killing of the Deceased

43.  The Defendant accepted and admitted that he had, on or about 17^th August 2018, in Hong Kong, unlawfully killed the Deceased.  He pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility in satisfaction of the Indictment for murder.

C. Mitigation

44.  Mr Derek Chan SC leading Mr Shu Wun Lee represented the Defendant in this case. Counsel have prepared a comprehensive written mitigation setting out the background of the offence, the gentle character of the Defendant, the mental condition of the Defendant at the time of the offence and the stress faced by the Defendant at the material time as revealed in the admitted facts and the reports by Drs Bonnie Siu, Robyn Ho and Sammy Cheng. Counsel urged this Court to consider the above backdrop when assessing the culpability of the Defendant.

45.  Counsel stressed that the Defendant has always accepted responsibility for the unlawful killing of his wife and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of provocation or diminished responsibility (which was not accepted by the prosecution in the first trial)  and he had maintained such a stance all along. Counsel urged this Court to give the Defendant a full one-third discount, citing in support the case of HKSAR v Sze Kwan Lung & Ors[1] and HKSAR v Husnain Safdar[2].

46.  Counsel also stressed that according to the psychiatrists, in-patient psychiatric treatment is not necessary for the Defendant. This Court is therefore invited to impose a fixed term of imprisonment. Counsel brought the following matters to this Court’s attention:

■  The killing was not planned

■  There is little relevance in personal deterrence

■  The defendants’ psychiatric condition and the offence occurred against a backdrop of prolonged stress: both workwise and in the family

■  Defendant never complained to anyone and never mistreated his wife prior to the unlawful killing

■  The killing was out of character. It was an impulsive act, contributed to by his mental condition, which in turn had been exacerbated by year of pressure from his wife.

■  Defendant has been in custody for 7 years and 2 months as of 4 November 2025.

47.  Both children Nancy and Scot have written to this Court, supporting a conviction of manslaughter in lieu of murder, without the need for a re-trial, which would have been a heavy burden for the whole family. They both asked for leniency on behalf of their father.

48.  Apart from the children, the Defendant’s friends and colleagues have also written to this Court, stressing that the unlawful killing was an isolated incident and out of character. They also asked for leniency on behalf of the Defendant.

49.  The Defendant also pleaded guilty to a charge of Preventing the lawful burial of a corpse (Common Law)  during the first trial and was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence then imposed during the first trial.

D. Consideration for sentence

50.  There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Much will depend on the parties involved and the circumstances of the killing. Sentences imposed in other manslaughter cases are of little assistance.

51.  I take into account all that was said on behalf of the Defendant, in particular the backdrop mentioned above, in assessing the culpability of the Defendant.

52.  The Defendant was suffering from depression at the time of the offence. He reacted to the dispute which arose that fatal evening/night and unlawfully killed his wife. The act was out of character. The meticulous ways the Defendant took to try to hide his wife’s corpse does not change the fact that his unlawful killing of his wife was due to his impaired ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control as a result of his mental condition. 

53.  The deceased’s act of opening a couple of bank accounts and deposited the HK$4 million dollar cheque into one of them on 16 August 2018 appears to be rather odd. From the background it would appear that the deceased knew the financial position of the Defendant well and must have realized that the Defendant did not have HK$4 million in his bank account at the time. Defence counsel confirmed that was indeed the case and suggested it might have been a way of the deceased controlling or putting pressure on the Defendant. Be that as it may, the money issue did appear to be part of the dispute between the Defendant and the deceased at the material time. 

54.  Having considered all the circumstances of this case, and all that was said in mitigation, I am of the view that a starting point of 11 years is appropriate. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter during the first trial and has maintained the same stance all along. I will give him a full one-third discount.

E. Actual sentence

55.  For the lesser offence of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility the Defendant is sentenced to 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

56.  I further ordered that the sentence of 28 months for Preventing the lawful burial of a corpse (Common Law)  to run concurrently with the sentence of 7 years and 4 months imposed for the offence of Manslaughter, making a total sentence of 7 years and 4 months.