HKSAR v. LUK WAI NANG

DCCC 998/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 998 OF 2012

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 1, possession of an offensive weapon, contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228; and Charge 3, throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  The facts are as follows.  The defendant lived on the 16th floor of Shek Wing House, Shek Lei II Estate, Kwai Chung.  He was living there with his wife and daughters but they moved to a shelter on 7 July last year to avoid the defendant’s temper and threatening behaviour towards them.

3.  Some days later, on 22 July, in the evening, the management office of that building, of that house received a complaint about the defendant’s behaviour and noise on the 16th floor.  Upon arrival on the 16th floor, a security guard discovered two dustbins had been tipped over and the rubbish spread over the floor.  There was a group of neighbours standing in the corridor. 

4.  Security guard saw the defendant come out of his home with a glass bottle and a hammer which scared all those neighbours surrounding him.  He then behaved rather oddly, swearing and shouting, leading the management company to call the police.

5.  Not long after, five police officers arrived and knocked on the defendant’s door, asking him to come out, but he refused.  After some time, when the police kept knocking, the defendant suddenly opened the door.  He was holding a knife and pointing it towards the police, threatening to chop them if they did not leave.  He also pointed it towards himself, threatening to kill himself if the police did not leave.  He then retreated back into his home.

6.  Not long after, the police heard a loud bang and was worried that he had hurt himself.  When there was no response to their knocking, the police tried to force open the gate and ram open his wooden door.  All of a sudden, the defendant opened his door and splashed some liquid towards the police officers.  He then threw out a white plastic bottle marked with “Potent Toilet Cleaning Liquid.”  After the liquid had been thrown at the officers, one officer felt a burning sensation over his right face, right eye and both forearms.  He immediately sought medical help and was sent to hospital.

7.  The defendant was eventually persuaded to come out of his premises and after he was arrested, he was taken to hospital for medical treatment.

8.  There is no dispute that the liquid that was left in the bottle after testing was determined to be a liquid containing hydrochloric acid having a concentration of 31 per cent weight by weight.  This is not a liquid with very strong hydrochloric acid but it is corrosive and capable of causing burn to skin and damages to eyes.

9.  The defendant did later make a full admission to the police under caution.  He admitted he splashed the liquid towards the police and threw the bottle that had contained the liquid at the police because he was angry with the police. 

10.  Luckily, the police officer who was splashed did not suffer any serious or permanent injury, but I cannot ignore the fact that he could potentially have suffered serious injury.

11.  The defendant is 52 years old, presently married with three daughters ranging between the ages of 16 and 24.  The defendant is not a man of clear record.  He has many previous convictions.  From the reports I have obtained and his criminal record, he has had a drug problem that began as early as in the early 1990s.  He has previous convictions that involved violence as well as violence towards police officers.

12.  From the two psychiatric reports I called for, it is clear that he has been known to the mental health services since 2004, and at that time he was diagnosed with having a heroin dependence syndrome, and his mental health clearly has deteriorated over the years so much so that his wife and children find his behaviour insufferable and have had to move out. 

13.  I see from the background report and the interview with the defendant’s wife, she has now instituted divorce proceedings. 

14.  After the offence, he was admitted into Kwai Chung Hospital and then remanded at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.  He has been diagnosed with suffering from schizophrenia and has been taking prescribed medication.  He is now showing improvement and his mental condition is stable, and because of this improvement, both psychiatrists do not find it necessary to consider an in‑patient treatment but recommend he continue psychiatric outpatient treatment.

15.  Defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  There are no guidelines for these two offences.  Sentence will be very case-specific, and I accept that at the time of the offence he was affected by his mental psychosis, but he admits that he knew what he was doing.  I have considered the background report submitted and the two medical reports put forward, and defence counsel has mitigated to the best of his ability with the facts he has before him.  I also take into account it was not a premeditated attack.  Under an emotional cloud, the defendant got angry and picked up a drain cleaner to throw at the police.

16.  Having said that, the police were clearly his target and the police were only doing their duty and do deserve protection.

17.  I will also take into account the strength of the drain cleaner was not very strong and, luckily, the police officer has not suffered permanent injury.  The third offence in particular is very serious and must be deterred.  A term of imprisonment is inevitable.

18.  After careful consideration of all the facts, the defendant’s background, the psychiatric reports, his plea and mitigation put forward, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of 5 months for his plea.  Defendant for Charge 1 is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

19.  For Charge 3, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of 1 year for his plea.  For Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

20.  Both charges arise from the same incident, and I order that both charges be served concurrently.  That would mean a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.

21.  Defendant is to continue to receive psychiatric treatment whilst serving the sentence.