HKSAR v. RUSADI DIDI

HCCC 57/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 57 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “throwing corrosive fluid with intent to do grievous bodily harm[1]” and “common assault[2]” before Magistrate Mr. Jeffrey Sze and was committed, on 17 February 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Upon his confirmation of his pleas and admission to the Summary of Facts, his convictions were duly recorded.

PARTICULARS

Count 1

2.  The defendant, on 17 February, 2023, near Lamp Post No. FB1928, Kik Yeung Road, Yuen Long, New Territories, unlawfully and maliciously threw upon Ms. W a corrosive fluid, namely sulphuric acid, with intent to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable her, or to do some grievous bodily harm to her.

Count 2

3.  The defendant, on the same day and at the same location as count 1, assaulted the same victim.

FACTS

4.  Ms. W came to Hong Kong in 2019 to work as a domestic helper.  She became acquainted with the defendant via Facebook in February 2022.  After dating for a period, they began cohabitating on 17 September 2022 at a place in North Point.  

5.  Ms. W broke up with the defendant on 8 January 2023 and moved to Tsim Sha Tsui on her own.  She did not maintain communication with the defendant.

6.  About a month later, on 17 February 2023, while Ms. W was on her way to meet up with a friend when she got off of a bus at the bus terminal at Kik Yeung Road in Yuen Long at around 11 a.m., this incident happened.

7.  At 11:05 a.m., while she was walking past the convenience store near lamp post FB1928 on Kik Yeung Road, someone pulled the back of the hoodie she was wearing from behind, and she felt liquid running down her back.  She immediately felt a burning sensation and pain in the back, and noticed a pungent smell from the liquid.  

8.  The  person behind then held her left hand, dragged it back causing her to turn around, and so she could see that it was the defendant who was doing those things to her.

9.  The defendant hit the right cheek of Ms. W with his right hand (count 2) and asked where she was going.  Ms. W replied by asking the defendant what he had poured onto her back.  The defendant did not answer her question, and went on to push Ms. W forcefully several times while she struggled and fiddled with her hoodie.

10.  The defendant held on to Ms. W’s hand and dragged her away.  Ms. W told him that she felt painful as her back and ankles were burning.  The defendant eventually allowed Ms. W to go into the public washroom at the bus terminal to have a wash, but took away her mobile phone before she went in.

11.  Once inside, Ms. W immediately told a passer-by that her ex-boyfriend had poured some liquid onto her back and that she was worried that he was going to hurt her again.  The passer-by helped her to make a report to the police.  

12.  Police officers arrived shortly and accompanied Ms. W out of the washroom, whereupon she identified the defendant as her assailant.  The defendant immediately fled, but was intercepted near the same lamp post FB1928 at around 11:25 a.m.  

13.  Upon search, a glass bottle containing some corrosive liquid was seized from his right front trousers pocket.  The defendant was wearing two gloves on his left hand, a fabric one on the outside and a plastic one on the inside.

14.  The defendant was arrested at 11:45 a.m.  He exercised his right and remained silent under caution.  

15.  Meanwhile, large areas of corrosive burnt holes had appeared on Ms. W’s hoodie and the T-shirt underneath her hoodie, and there were multiple discoloured spots on her jeans.

16.  Ms. W was taken to hospital.  She felt the burn and pain at her injured back and ankles during treatment.  There were multiple wounds over her back and bilateral posterior ankles, with sizes ranging from one to a few centimeters.  She felt painful and there was redness over the wounds.  The pH value of her back and leg was at 7.  The doctor conducted irrigation over the injuries and applied dressing to the wound. Ms. W was able to walk without aid, but was nevertheless admitted to the surgical ward of the Burn Unit of the Department of Surgery at Tuen Mun Hospital for further care.

17.  The medical findings are that there were scattered second degree burns over her back, which was 2% of the total body surface area.  There were also other small first degree burns on her forehead, left cheek, scalp and left medial ankle.  The pH value of her hair was 4-5, whilst that over her back and bilateral leg were 7.  The wound was superficial with no sign of infection.

18.  Ms. W was discharged from the hospital two days later on 19 February 2023 with analgesics prescribed.

19.  Government chemists confirmed that the glass bottle found on the defendant contained 12 milliliters of a liquid containing sulphuric acid, with a concentration of 95% weight by weight (w/w).  Sulphuric acid, at a concentration of 95% w/w, is highly corrosive, capable of causing severe skin burns and permanent visual damage.  

20.  They found a corrosive burnt hole in the little finger region of the defendant’s left fabric glove with traces of sulphuric acid.  Corrosive burnt holes and discolouration spots were found mainly on the left front side of the defendant’s jacket (which were in particular serious in the vicinity of the left sleeve) with traces of sulphuric acid.  Discolouration spots were also found on the left side of the Defendant’s trousers with traces of sulphuric acid.  Corrosive burnt holes and discolouration spots were also found on the back of Ms. W’s T-shirt; the back and the hat of her hoodie with traces of sulphuric acid.

21.  A cautioned video recorded interview was conducted with the defendant on the day of the attack and he claimed the following.

22.  The defendant said he first became acquainted with Ms. W in March 2021, and that they got married under an Islamic ceremony about 6 months later.  That marriage was not registered.  They then began to cohabitate in North Point.

23.  The defendant claimed that Ms. W left him in around January 2023.  He thought it was because she had another boyfriend, since he had seen another man calling her on her mobile phone.  They did not contact each other anymore after the break up.  

24.  The defendant said he had picked up a bottle of liquid at a refuse collection point in Sai Ying Pun about 2 to 3 months ago.  Since the words on the bottle stated that the liquid could be used to treat rust on iron, he took it home.

25.  He said he had put the bottle in his trousers pocket after picking it up, and there was some accidental spillage which left burnt holes in his trousers and injured his leg. That was how he became aware of the corrosive nature of the liquid and its effect.  He later poured the corrosive liquid from the original bottle into the one that was found on his person by the police that day.

26.  The defendant said he left North Point at around 9 a.m. on the morning of 17 February to go to Yuen Long, while carrying the bottle of liquid.  He went to Yuen Long because he heard from others that Ms. W was often seen there.

27.  The defendant did see her outside an Indonesian shop ‘Srikandi’.  He then followed her for around 3 minutes before pouring the corrosive liquid over her from behind.  He did so because he was tired and angry about her leaving him.  He had put the bottle back into his trousers pocket.  After the pouring, he realized that he had harmed Ms. W.

28.  The defendant admitted that he was wearing a black facial mask when he committed the offence. He, however, said he did not intend to leave the scene when asked why he fled.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

29.  The defendant is of previously clear record.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

30.  The defendant was born in 1988 and is 37.  He completed his primary school education in Indonesia. All his family members including his parents worked as farmers there.  The defendant is single and came to Hong Kong in February 2020.  He is now seeking asylum and non-refoulment here.

THE DEFENDANT’S PSYCHOLOGIST REPORT

31.  Given the nature of the commission of the offence, and that the defendant is seeking asylum in Hong Kong, I found it prudent to try to ascertain the risk of re-offending before sentencing the defendant.  

32.  It is Clinical Psychologist Ms. Kam’s finding that:

“The index offenses are impressed to be related to his poor capacity for relationship stability, rigid thinking style, low emotional awareness, impoverished emotional coping skills by bottling-up, and lack of consequential thinking. He accepted partial responsibility and admitted some of the offences. Integrating all available information with the risk scale findings, Mr. Didi’s risk of violent recidivism was assessed to be low and the index offence appeared to be episodic in nature. No signs of antisocial personality traits nor major psychopathology were elicited either. While superficial remorse was noted, some insight into his problem areas and motivation to improve his emotional coping abilities to prevent himself from re-offending were observed. In view of his clinical profile, counselling service focusing on enhancing his mood management skills and skills in handling relationship issues shall be beneficial to him.”

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

Count 1

33.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for count 1 is that of life imprisonment.

34.  It is well settled that deterrence is one of the most important considerations when sentencing cases involving the throwing of corrosive liquid.  In the case of HKSAR v Cheung Cho Fat (張祖發) [2010] 5 HKC 400; CACC 306/2009, the Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from R v Wong On Lin [1995] 1 HKC 659 at 662:

“The seriousness of the offence is reflected in the maximum sentence which the court may pass, that is to say, life imprisonment… A deterrent, and a strongly deterrent, sentence is inevitably called for. Only in the most exceptional circumstances can an offender of this type expect to avoid a long period of imprisonment.”

35.  I refer also to the following observations of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan CACC 166/2001:

“The range of facts of each case will vary greatly as to the nature of the attack and its motives, the mindset of the attacker, the spontaneity of the attack or, conversely, the degree of planning, how real and specific was the intent to cause injury, and no doubt a host of other pertinent features which may have a bearing on the degree of culpability.”

36.  Mr. Gordon Wong relies on the following casesto suggest a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment for count 1.

37.  In HKSAR v Yu Tim-hi (余添喜) CACC 170/2013, the applicant husband and the victim had been married for about 7 years when the wife asked for a divorce.  After the relevant divorce papers were signed, one evening, they had an argument and the applicant punched the victim, resulting in bruises.  The matter was reported to the police 4 days later and she was arranged to stay at a Harmony Home.  The applicant was arrested for that assault and released on police bail.  Whilst on bail, about 50 days after that attack, the applicant got a woman to call the victim at her place of work, falsely claiming to be a police inspector.  The victim went outside to find the defendant instead.  Since he appeared calm, she agreed to go with him to a nearby children’s playground, where they talked about their relationship for about an hour.  The applicant asked for a reunion.  When the victim refused and tried to leave, the applicant stopped her and took out a bottle of fluid from a plastic bag retrieved from a planter nearby and splashed the fluid at her.  The victim’s face and hands sustained burns.  The applicant was subdued by passersby and handed over to the police.

38.  The victim was hospitalized for almost a month.  On admission, she was found to have sustained deep burn to her right face, bilateral distal forearm, left knee and scalp.  7% of her body surface was affected.  Skin grafting was needed, with scars over wrist and face with alopecia.  A starting point of 12 years was approved by the Court of Appeal.

39.  In HKSAR v Lung Hau Lin (龍孝連) [2004] 2 HKLRD 716, the applicant and her cohabitating partner had broken up.  Upon her failure to restore the relationship, she threw corrosive liquid at the victim the following day, seriously damaging his corneas and he was almost rendered completely blind.  The applicant surrendered herself to the police.  A psychiatric report was prepared and the applicant was found to be suffering from depression from the break-up, with out-patient treatment recommended.  The trial judge adopted a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment, discounted by one-third for her guilty plea to 8 years, and then a further reduction of 2 years was granted based on the applicant’s “special background”.  The Court of Appeal did not disturb the final sentence, and stated that, “for offences of this nature, where the victim’s injuries were not extremely serious, the sentencing court would normally adopt a relatively low starting point”.  The Court then found the applicant’s injuries extremely serious and confirmed that the 12-year starting point was not manifestly excessive.  

40.  In HKSAR v Wong Yuk Yee [2013] 3 HKLRD 218; CACC 205/2012 the applicant wife suffered a marriage breakdown.  Upon suffering another setback after a court hearing, she splashed corrosive fluid (hydrochloric acid) at her husband’s head inside the courtroom.  As a result, the victim was hospitalized for half a month; at the time of his release, he had no vision and had to be looked after by others; according to a report made in May 2012 (about 9 months after the attack), the husband said he still could not see from his left eye, but could see only 30-40% with the right eye.  He suffered pain in his left eye as well.  The applicant was diagnosed as suffering a moderate depressive episode after the offence.  At the time of sentence, the psychiatrist at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre was of the opinion that in-hospital treatment was not required, though she was recommended out-patient clinic attendance for further management of her mood problems.  A starting point of 8 years was considered adequate by the Court of Appeal, which incorporated a one-year upward adjustment to the sentence in Wong Sau Lai (below).

41.  In 香港特別行政區 訴 黃秀麗 (Wong Sau Lai) CACC 283/2000, the defendant and her husband got married in China in 1975.  After settling in Hong Kong later on, the husband met and married another woman in Dongguan, China in 1989, and their son was born in 1990.  The defendant found out about that marriage in 1992 and asked her husband to break it up, which he had refused to do.  The woman came to Hong Kong in 1996 to settle here.  As a result of her presence, the defendant and her husband had a bad relationship and they often quarreled.

42.  At about 0:15 a.m. on November 12, 1999, they had a violent dispute when the defendant demanded her husband to leave the other woman again.  The husband used an iron pipe to strike the table, chair and shoe cabinet during the argument.  The defendant quieted down, and the husband went to sleep.

43.  At about 5 a.m. that morning, he woke up to the pungent smell from liquid that was poured on his head, and great pain in his eyes.  The defendant had poured corrosive liquid on him while he was sleeping.

44.  After treatment, the husband’s left eye recovered.  The injury to his right eye was more serious, with complications caused by chemical damage, including severe cataracts, abnormal iris tubules and glaucoma.  The condition of his right eye remained unstable and required long-term treatment by a specialist.  His vision at the time made him unfit to drive a commercial vehicle.

45.  The learned trial judge, after much deliberation, adopted a starting point of 7 years.  The final sentence after plea of 4 years included an extra reduction of 8 months for the defendant’s personal circumstances.  Both the starting point and the sentence was upheld on appeal.

46.  In the case of Cheung Cho Fat mentioned above, at about 6:15 pm on 22 January 2009, the defendant went to the home of his estranged wife, with whom he had been married for about 50 years.  They had separated in 2008, after which the wife had moved out of their matrimonial home and into her own place nearby in the same village.

47.  The defendant had with him two glasses of drain cleaner of sulphuric acid of at least 88% w/w.

48.  They had had disputes over money matters before, but no dispute was going on at that particular time.

49.  The front door was unlocked, and the defendant went in without warning.  The wife was cooking when she saw the defendant standing in the doorway to her kitchen, holding the two glasses of liquid.

50.  The defendant ‘suddenly shoved’ at least one of the glasses of corrosive liquid into her face, after he had removed the tin foil covers on both glasses which were held in place by rubber bands.

51.  The wife cried out in pain and fled to the washroom and hid behind their daughter.  The defendant gave chase and threw the liquid in the other glass at his wife as well, some of which splashed onto the daughter who was standing between them.  The defendant remained intent on pursuing his wife but was dissuaded by the daughter.  He then left their house.

52.  The wife suffered injuries to her face, eyelids and arms, with second degree partial thickness burns.  She was hospitalized for 4 days.  There were residual marks and scars but not great disfigurement.  Their daughter was not hospitalized, although she did suffer first degree burns to her neck and arm, which had healed reasonably well.  

53.  The defendant was charged with two separate counts for the injuries suffered by the wife and the daughter.

54.  The learned trial judge stated that the degree of injury caused is a relevant factor in sentencing, just as it is a relevant factor in cases of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm: “It is obvious that in a case of throwing corrosive fluid, which causes very serious injuries, that the sentence will be enhanced to match those injuries.  Where, as here, the injuries, though serious, are not of the utmost gravity, then that too should be reflected in the sentence.”  He also stresses the importance of a significant element of deterrence in sentencing cases such as his, where there was a ‘determined attack’, and at the most vulnerable part of the wife’s body, her face.

55.  A starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment was adopted, and upheld on appeal.

56.  HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan CACC 166/2001 is a case where the Court of Appeal stated was decided “purely on its very particular facts and circumstances”.

57.  There the applicant poured sulphuric acid on the face and neck of her ex-husband.  They were divorced but still living in the same household with their sons at first, and after the husband had moved out to live in quarters provided by the restaurant he was working in, the applicant’s wish that they may get back together was shattered.  She started to think that he was going to marry another woman, causing her to suffer from insomnia, for which she took heavy dosages of sleeping pills.  

58.  On 1^st July 2000, the applicant was disappointed that her husband did not come home.  She became distressed and disorganized.  She slept for one to two hours and went to see her husband at his work place the following day.  They talked at a public garden.  The talk evolved into a quarrel, whereupon the applicant took out a small bottle of 88% sulphuric acid and threw it at the husband’s face and neck.  She also threw some of the liquid on herself on purpose.

59.  The husband was in pain and went immediately to a nearby washroom to wash the fluid off, which might have saved him from more serious injuries.  He was later taken to hospital.  There were superficial burns to his face and neck, about 1% of the total body area.  With treatment, there was no scar on his face, although there was some potentially permanent scarring to his neck.

60.  A psychiatric report was prepared on the applicant.  She was found to be suffering from ‘acute adjustment disorder’ at the time of the offence, and that her “mental and social functioning was severely impaired”.

61.  On appeal, the 10 year starting point adopted by the trial judge was found to be manifestly excessive in the circumstances, where insufficient weight had been given to the “really impaired” state of the applicant’s mind when the offence was committed.

62.  The Court recognized that for offences of this nature, “the injuries suffered by the victim are of little relevant to sentence”, but then went on to find that it is important “to pay heed in each case to all the surrounding circumstances”.

63.  They then referred to the throwing being done when they were quarrelling, that the applicant threw some of the acid on herself, and that she had transferred the liquid into a rather small bottle to limit the quantity of liquid.

64.  The Court compared those facts to that in the above case of Wong Sau Lai (黃秀麗) and found that the applicant’s culpability not as serious as the applicant in the earlier case, and that an appropriate starting point should have been 5 years instead of the 10 years adopted by the trial judge.

THE PRESENT CASE

65.  In the present case, the defendant’s commission of the offence was pre-meditated and is accepted, fairly, by Mr. Wong as an aggravating feature.

66.  The corrosive liquid was poured down from the neck area of Ms. W, which is a very vulnerable part of the human body and near the head.  This added to the seriousness of the attack.

67.  Fortunately for Ms. W, a combination of factors had worked together in a way that she managed to not suffer more serious injuries.  There were not that much corrosive liquid in the bottle, the pouring was from behind her and not straight at her face and eyes, and some of the liquid was stopped by her clothing.

68.  It would also appear that she had a chance to dilute the acid in the washroom.  The fact that she was discharged 2 days after her admission to the hospital with a prescription of painkillers is also an indication of the relatively minor injuries.

69.  There is also the courage and intelligence on the part of Ms. W, which had allowed her first to resist the defendant by moving away, and then to realize that she needed to wash off the corrosive liquid, and to seek help reporting to the police after the defendant had confiscated her phone before she was allowed to enter the washroom.  

70.  I find that the fact that the attacks were conducted on a public street an aggravating feature, since it added to the possibility of innocent passersby being injured.

71.  The act of the defendant’s taking away of Ms. W’s phone also added to his culpability since he was obviously trying to make sure she could not seek help using the phone.

72.  There is no doubt that what the defendant did was despicable, and the sentence must reflect the court’s disgust for his conduct, as well as fully integrate in it the element of deterrence.

73.  Lastly, according to the defendant’s psychologist report, his risk of re-offending is found to be low, as such I do not find a further need to enhance his sentence.

74.  In the circumstances, despite the relatively less serious injury suffered, I find that an appropriate starting point is that of 7 years’ imprisonment.  

75.  The defendant was a Form 8 recognizance holder at the time of the commission of the offences, and it is trite law that this is an aggravating factor.  For this, I will enhance the defendant’s sentence by 1 year, taking it to 8 years’ imprisonment before plea.

Count 2

76.  The maximum sentence for common assault is 1 years’ imprisonment.

77.  Although there was just one single hit of Ms. W’s face, the assault came right after the defendant had poured the corrosive liquid onto Ms. W, which must have added to the fear and anguish that she was already experiencing.

78.  I find that a short term imprisonment is appropriate, and I adopt a starting point of 20 days’ imprisonment, which is enhanced to 30 days for the aggravating factor of the defendant being a Form 8 holder.

TOTALITY

79.  Given the circumstances of the commission of the two offences being inextricably linked, and that the sentence of count 1 is sufficient to embrace the defendant’s culpability in the common assault, I order the two sentences to be served wholly concurrently.

80.  The defendant is, therefore, sentenced to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment after plea for the two counts.