COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 30 January 2014 to two counts of Throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
The corrosive fluid was sulphuric acid, analysed by the Government Chemist to be at a concentration of 87 per cent, weight by weight. Sulphuric acid at that concentration is highly corrosive and capable of causing severe burns to the skin and permanent damage to the eyes.
The victims were the defendant’s estranged wife and his 21 year old son. On 17 April 2014, an amended single charge was filed prior to the defendant confirming his plea in this court. The defendant pleaded guilty to the amended charge and confirmed the facts to which he had pleaded. At the time of this incident, the defendant was aged 65 and he and his wife were in the process of a divorce. The first victim, who was 46, had filed a divorce petition. The parties were living apart, although the defendant returned to the family home on occasion.
Around 8.30 am on 18 June 2013, the first victim noticed that the defendant had returned to the house. She ignored him and slept until 11.30 am when the defendant woke her demanding the return of a mobile phone. The victim returned the mobile phone and asked the defendant to return the house keys. At that point the defendant became emotional, took a ceramic knife from a wardrobe, pointed it at the victim and shouted at her. She ignored him and went to the living room, followed by the defendant still pointing the knife and swearing at her.
The second victim, the son, came out of the washroom and stood in front of the first victim to protect her. The defendant threw the knife on the floor. He took a bottle of liquid, undid the cap and poured the liquid on the first victim’s chest. She was only wearing a night gown. The second victim, who was wearing only his underpants, was also splashed with the liquid.
Both victims felt burning pain and rushed to the washroom to wash off the liquid. They locked the door and called for help. The defendant kicked the door until it broke. A struggle then took place in the living room. All three people fell to the floor and when they stood up the defendant grabbed the knife again.
The second victim struggled with the defendant and wrested the knife from him. The defendant then took a chopper from the kitchen, but the first victim took it from him. The first victim then ran for help, followed by the defendant and the second victim.
The defendant was still emotional at this stage. He told the first victim to chop him and then struggled again with the second victim, who pretended to faint. The defendant ran off in an unknown direction.
Eventually a passer-by called the police and the two victims were admitted first to the A&E Department of Tuen Mun Hospital and then the Prince of Wales Burns Unit. The first victim suffered 38 per cent mixed full thickness and partial thickness chemical burns over her head, neck, trunk, bilateral upper limbs and bilateral lower limbs. The second victim suffered a total of 25 per cent total body surface area burns, including 5 per cent full thickness burns over his neck, trunk, upper limbs and lower limbs. Both victims remained in hospital from 18 June 2013 until their release on 7 August 2013.
Medical reports obtained in June 2014 set out details of the medical treatment that each victim received.
The first victim suffered 38 per cent mixed full thickness and partial thickness chemical burns over her head, neck, trunk, bilateral upper limbs and bilateral lower limbs. She also had a laceration over the palmar aspect of the left hand. The wound was sutured and did not cause injury to any vital part of the hand and the wound healed properly. Debridement and skin grafting was done over 25 per cent of the total body surface on the anterior trunk, the bilateral lower limbs and the left upper limbs. Further surgery was undergone to 5 per cent of the total body surface area, including the posterior trunk and the left lower limb. She was given physiotherapy and pressure therapy.
After her discharge from hospital, she continued as an outpatient for physiotherapy and wound care. Later, the neck scar contracted and restricted her movement, which necessitated further surgery on 16 April 2014 to release the scar. Reports did not reveal any permanent physical disability, although the scaring is likely to be permanent.
The second victim was in the burns unit from 18 June 2013 to 7 August 2013. 26 per cent of the burns included 5 per cent full thickness burns to the left upper limb, 21 per cent partial thickness burns over the neck, the trunk, the upper and lower limbs. There was a laceration on the right eyebrow which was sutured and which healed. A corneal defect was discovered by the ophthalmologist; it was treated and healed. There was a psychological consultation for the second victim, but it was found that he was maintaining a stable mood; there was no need for further assessment.
There were three lots of surgery for this victim and skin grafts with skin taken from him as the host supplier. By 44 days after the date of the injury, the wounds had mainly healed. The second victim was given a pressure garment for scar management and he will be further assessed for continuation of care and scar management.
The view of the ophthalmologist was that the defect of the eye, the cornea, could have been caused by chemical injury, or by mechanical abrasion. The defect was treated with lubricants and antibiotic eye drops and thus healed.
The defendant was arrested on the afternoon of 18 June 2013. Under caution he accused his wife of wanting to get as much alimony as possible, so he chopped her. He claimed his wife had chopped him with a knife and that he had taken drain cleaner from the kitchen. In another cautioned statement he claimed to have taken the drain cleaner from the washroom. The first victim said that she had never seen such fluid in the house.
The defendant sustained non-circumferential injury over 5 per cent of the total surface area of full thickness burn and 1 per cent of the total surface area of second degree burn over the right side of the back, bilateral upper limbs and face. He was admitted to Tuen Mun Hospital on 18 June 2013 and transferred to the Queen Mary Hospital on 23 June for further management.
In his first video interview, the defendant spoke of a dispute, his emotional state and suggested that the victims retaliated by splashing him with the acid after he dropped the bottle. However, given the amount of fluid which landed on the victims and the amount of pain they were in, it is highly unlikely that they could have done anything more than fend off the most immediate attacks by the defendant. The defendant’s chemical burn injuries are more likely to have been sustained in a struggle with the victims, in particular when he fell with the victims to the floor.
In his second video interview, the defendant said he became emotional and splashed the first victim with the acid, but denied pouring it on his son. He professed not to know how his son was splashed, but as to his own injuries, he speculated that the first victim may have splashed his back.
The defendant is 66 and was born in China on 15 June 1948. He was educated to form 1 level in China. He had worked as a construction site worker, a truck driver and a taxi driver, but was unemployed at the date of the arrest. He was first married in 1974 and had three children, but was divorced in 2007. In the same year he married the first victim, by whom he had two sons. At the date of this incident, the parties were in the process of divorce, which was finalised on 5 October 2013.
The defendant does not have any convictions. However, at the date of the incident he was subject to a binding over order for a period of 12 months from 2 August 2012, which meant he committed the instant offence within the period of the binding over. I called for and perused the magistrate’s court file relating to the bind over. Originally the defendant had been charged with criminal intimidation and AOABH. The victim of those offences was the first victim, his wife. The defendant accused the first victim of having an affair and during the dispute that followed, he dragged an LPG cylinder from the kitchen to the bedroom and threatened to kill her, hit the victim’s legs and private parts about 10 times and then bit her foot. The victim reported to the police and went to the hospital, where her foot was found to be abraded, red and tender. Her perineum was found to be tender also.
The matter came before a magistrate, but for reasons which are not obvious from the file, no plea was taken and an application for a binding over was sought. That was unfortunate, because if the defendant had been convicted of what was a significant assault on his wife and had received a short prison sentence at that stage, he might have been discouraged from the second more violent attack.
In this context I would comment that despite efforts to combat the trend, there is even now too frequent and too swift recourse by the courts and the police to use the binding over procedure instead of a criminal trial for serious assaults which are dismissed as only domestic disputes. Often a series of such domestic disputes will culminate in the death of one of the parties, usually the wife or female partner. Subsequent investigation then reveals a number of previous violent incidents which were not given the attention they demanded.
That said, I refer to the binding over not to try the defendant for that assault, but to note that it is an indication of his attitude towards his wife at the time.
In mitigation I was advised that the defendant was in a state of extreme emotional despondency as a result of the divorce proceedings, which he did not understand and which he feared was taking from him his family, his possessions and his home. Counsel who appears for the defendant comments that if there had been mediation at an earlier stage in the proceedings, this incident might not have occurred.
Be that as it may, this is a very serious offence of a type which sadly occurs far too often in Hong Kong. The case results from a breakdown of a relationship, or a marital dispute where the offender wreaks vengeance on the person who is perceived as being the cause or the reason for the breakdown of the relationship, or the loss of consortium. The offender aims to punish the victim for the emotional damage and to ensure the victim will not offend again in the same manner, usually by ensuring that the victim is disfigured or incapacitated. The defendant here was intent on punishing the first victim for proceeding with the divorce.
In the case of Chan Chi Lun [1989] 1 HKC 70 a gang attack was examined, but it is pertinent and helpful for its comments on the principles which apply to cases such as this. The trial judge referred to the crime as “evil and horrible” and noted the fact that:
“The case could have been even more serious. It does not reduce the gravity of the offence or excuse the moral turpitude of the perpetrator. Section 29 of the Ordinance makes it clear that an offender under this section is guilty of the offence, whether any bodily injury is effected or not. The only way to stamp out such attacks is by deterrent sentences that adequately mark the public’s revulsion at such depraved behaviour.”
The case of HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan [CACC 166/2001] was put before the court and reference was made to the principles of sentencing found in the cases traversed in that judgment. The case made some major points.
“There could be no tariff sentences because the incidents are case-specific. Deterrence was the basis of sentencing for what was recognised as a truly terrible and evil crime. The nature of the offence is so serious that the injuries to the victim are of little relevance to sentence. The court should pay heed to all the surrounding circumstances - in this case the marital dispute is cited as the surrounding circumstances - and it is probable that the views of the victim, if rational and intelligent, should be taken into account.”
It is important to note that Wong Siu Kwan was decided in 2001 and some of the cases referred to therein date back to 1987. The court was advocating deterrence, but some sentences, in retrospect, appear extremely light given the degree of culpability revealed by the facts.
It appears that in part, at least, sentences imposed are not sufficiently long to discourage perpetrators, such as this defendant, from solving their personal problems by disfiguring their target’s body and/or face with sulphuric acid or a similar liquid.
The maximum penalty for this type of offence is life imprisonment. Factors which affect the sentence are the choosing of the first victim as deserving of punishment and the recklessness in respect of the attack on the second victim for trying to protect the first victim simply because he happened to be present.
Consideration must be given for the plea of guilty entered by the defendant, which is the only mitigation that has real benefit for him. He entitled to a full one-third discount.
Against that is the nature of the attack; the fact that the attack involved two victims; an element of planning, exemplified by the defendant bringing the acid with him; the use of a very high concentration of acid; the pointing of the knife and the gravity of the chopper, which although ultimately, not dangerous in themselves, served to distract the victims from their need to wash off the acid; the permanence of the physical damage, long-term scarring and possibly further operations maybe required and the possible psychological damage resulting from the victims’ attempts to form romantic relationships. This is particularly relevant in respect of the second victim who is only 22. There is also to be taken into account the probable difficulties that both victims will experience in trying to find employment, given societal attitudes in Hong Kong to physical blemishes and disability.
I take these matters into account. I also take into account the defendant’s position vis-à-vis the matrimonial proceedings which were continuing on at that time. I have also taken into account the defendant’s own letter which expresses his remorse and the letters from the Caritas Elderly Centre where the signatories refer to Mr Lau as a man who is proactive in the centre, who treats other people kindly, who assisted the elderly and had harmonious relationships with other classmates and instructors. The defendant has suffered from diabetes for some time. He has high cholesterol and possible heart disease. The signatories of that letter asked for a lenient sentence on the defendant.
The defendant’s own letter says that he has had time over the last 10 months to think about what he had done, which made him extremely regretful and remorseful. He says that he has caused tragedy to his family and bodily harm to his ex-wife and that he innocently injured his son. He says:
“Causing this domestic violence is because I had been suffering from the devil of long-term disease. In addition to the trouble, matters in the family which caused me momentary emotional and out-of-control of my temper, which caused the present tragedy.”
He hopes for forgiveness from his ex-wife and his son.
A report from the doctor confirms the defendant suffers from diabetes mellitus. The medical report was compiled by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where Mr Lau was registered as a patient; it was prepared by Ho Kau-chung, Charles, who is the consultant.
I do not consider that this case is on all fours with Wong Siu Kwan, despite Mr Arthur’s suggestions to the contrary.
Having considered all the matters and considered the various cases referred to in Wong Siu Kwan, I take a starting point of 15 years and sentence the defendant to 10 years’ imprisonment.
In view of the length of the sentence, I do not consider there is any point in dealing with the question of the breach of the bind over, so I make no order in respect of the bind over.