The defendant was originally committed to this Court for trial in respect of four counts of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. At the second CMH on 5 June 2020, the prosecution informed the Court that they would accept the defendant’s pleas to wounding 19 in full satisfaction of each of the four counts of wounding 17 on the Indictment.
Further, the prosecution confirmed that such offer to plead to wounding 19 was made to the prosecution at the committal stage in May 2019. In other words, the defendant should be treated as having entered these pleas at the earliest available opportunity, which pleas have now been accepted by the prosecution.
This morning, I convicted the defendant of wounding 19 in respect of each of the four counts on the Indictment after he had so pleaded guilty and after he admitted the Summary of Facts. Of course, as accepted by the prosecution, these pleas were to be taken in full satisfaction of those wounding 17 counts on the Indictment.
The facts were briefly these: PW1 and PW2 were mainlanders who visited Hong Kong. On 20 August 2018, they were staying in a relative’s home in Sham Shui Po, hereinafter the premises. That night, a friend of PW1 went to the premises to visit PW1. A girl aged 3, Xu and a boy aged 2, Wu, were also inside the premises at that time. At about 10.15 pm, PW1 accompanied his friend to leave. When they went outside the building, PW1 asked his friend to wait for him as he had to go back to the premises to fetch an umbrella and his mobile. At that time, the defendant followed PW1 and entered the building. The two entered the lift and left on the same floor. When PW1 opened the door of the premises and entered, the defendant stopped him from closing the door. The defendant then also entered into the premises. PW1 asked the defendant why he was there but the defendant did not reply. The defendant then went into the kitchen and picked up a pair of scissors of about 6 inches long and pointed it at PW1 and PW2. PW1 and PW2 tried to stop the defendant, but they were both stabbed. PW2 left the premises to call for assistance. Meanwhile, the defendant stabbed both the girl, Xu, and the boy, Wu, with the pair of scissors. PW1 then took a chopper from the kitchen to defend himself and the defendant then left the premises.
PW1, PW2, the girl and the boy were all admitted to the hospital later that day. PW1 had a 2-centimetre left chest wall laceration with acute bleeding at that time. He was discharged on 21 August 2018.
PW2 had a 3-centimetre stab wound at his upper chest wall. Chest X-ray showed left side pneumothorax, that is, collapsed lung. PW2 was then admitted to the intensive care unit and was later transferred to the surgical ward on 22 August 2018. He was discharged on 7 September 2018 after having been hospitalised for 18 days.
The girl, Xu, had two 2-Centimetre long lacerations over the posterolateral aspect of her left arm. Emergency operation was performed and she was discharged on 23 August 2018.
The boy, Wu, had a 2-Centimetre wound at his central chest wall and another 1-Centimetre wound at his upper abdominal wall. He was resuscitated and admitted to the Surgery Department. On 23 August 2018, he was discharged from the hospital.
The defendant was arrested by the police on the day after the events, that is, on 21 August 2018. PW1, his friend, and PW2 subsequently identified the defendant at identification parades.
The defendant’s background and mitigation
The defendant was born in the Mainland and was educated up to primary level there. He is now aged 45 and is divorced with a son. However, he had lost contact with his family thereafter.
Prior to this offence, the defendant had 15 criminal convictions in respect of which he was variously sentenced to DATC and a term of 15 months’ imprisonment between 1999 and 2017. Six of his previous convictions were possession of a dangerous drug, two were theft, three were publishing an obscene article and four were employing a person not lawfully employable. The defendant was discharged from the DATC on 14 August 2018, just a few days before the current incident, and he was unemployed at the time of the offences.
I had before me a psychiatric report from Dr Wong Yee Him and one from Dr Dorothy Tang from Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre dated 27 May 2020. It was disclosed in both reports that the defendant started using heroin at his teenage. Reportedly, the defendant quit heroin use about five years ago and changed to methamphetamine, that is ‘Ice’, consuming 1 stroke per day. His last use of ‘Ice’ was said to be on the day of the offences. According to Dr Tang, the defendant was repeatedly interviewed between 24 August and 14 December 2018. At that time, the defendant was new to the mental health service. However, the defendant reported to Dr Tang that he had heard a non-existent male voice for two years, about once in two weeks.
In respect of the wounding incident, the defendant admitted following PW1 to the premises. He said PW1 did not lock the door and appeared to be welcoming. The defendant then heard PW1 asking him “Which one” when they came across the boy and the girl. The defendant believed that PW1 was forcing him to choose one child to support. He was therefore angry and he then went to the toilet but PW1 scolded him. The defendant said he became furious and picked up a pair of scissors in the kitchen. When PW1 and PW2 tried to subdue him, the defendant said he then accidentally stabbed them.
Based on her assessment, Dr Tang was of the opinion that the defendant suffered from mental and behavioural disorder due to use of methamphetamine, harmful use, and he was likely intoxicated at the time of the incident. However, the defendant’s mental condition was observed to be stable during the remand in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre with abstinence from illicit drugs and no inpatient psychiatric management was considered to be necessary. Dr Siu, another psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, was also of the opinion that the defendant was mentally stable at the centre and no psychiatric treatment was required, although he might be benefited from detoxification programs.
Dr Wong proffered similar opinions as those of Dr Tang and he considered the defendant to be suffering from the mental effects of methamphetamine abuse at the material time. In relation to the psychiatric diagnosis, Dr Wong was also of the opinion that the defendant suffered from mental and behavioural disorder due to use of methamphetamine, harmful use.
In mitigation, Mr Leung for the defendant submitted that the defendant’s criminal records showed that he was drug dependent. Other than the possession of a dangerous drug offences, the other offences, according to Mr Leung, were clearly committed because of the defendant’s drug dependency. Further, Mr Leung told the Court that the defendant has now been cleared of his drug addiction problem and it is unlikely that he would reoffend. Mr Leung emphasised that if not because of the defendant’s drug problem, he would not have committed the current offences.
Sentencing considerations and the sentence
I should state at the outset that, although we are not dealing with the originally charged wounding 17 offences, for a stranger to barge into another’s private premises to mount attacks of this nature, including attacks on toddlers aged only two and three, are at the serious end of the wounding 19 offence, which carries with it a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment.
This morning, Mr Sham for the prosecution confirmed that no victim impact statement would be necessary because all four victims have fully recovered and they do not require any regular medical follow-up. It was also said that the incident did not have any long-term psychiatric impact on PW1, PW2 and the parents of the toddlers. However, I have to say that it was only fortunate that no permanent injuries were caused to any of the victims and it remains a fact that such violent acts should be met with a deterrent sentence.
There is no tariff for the wounding 19 offence. Needless to say, the factual matrix in each case could not be identical.
Having taken into account all the relevant facts, including the aggravating factors mentioned above, I consider that a starting point of 30 months for each count is called for in this case. The defendant offered to plead guilty to wounding 19 at the committal stage. I would therefore give him the full one-third reduction for his pleas. As four victims were involved and there are four charges, the sentences should, in principle, run consecutively. However, having considered the overall criminality, I take the view that an overall term of 50 months upon plea should sufficiently reflect the defendant’s culpability in these four offences.
30 months reduced by one-third is 20 months for each charge. To achieve the overall term of 50 months, I order that 10 months each of the terms for Charges 2 to 4 are to run consecutively to the 20-month term for Charge 1, the rest to run wholly concurrently, giving an overall term of 50 months.