HKSAR v. YAU KIT KEUNG

HCCC84/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 84 OF 2009

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:  This is my sentence in HCCC84 of 2009.  The 50-year-old defendant, who faced a count of murder, was convicted unanimously by the jury of the manslaughter of his 31-year-old mistress, by reason of provocation.  The facts of the case as must have been found by the jury were that the relationship between the defendant and the deceased had been found out by his wife.  The deceased had then placed considerable pressure on the defendant to divorce his wife. 

     On the day of the offence there had been a meeting amongst the defendant, his wife and the deceased without any clear resolution to the dispute and when the defendant returned home with his wife that evening the deceased commenced a series of persistent telephone calls insisting the defendant join her at the room he had rented for her in Kwai Chung so as to collect his belongings.

     The defendant eventually went there late in the evening but when he had gathered his belongings the deceased prevented him leaving.  Verbal confrontation escalated into a physical struggle, which culminated in the defendant pulling a curtain from the room's window, winding it around the neck of the deceased and strangling her to death. 

     The provoking acts and words said to have been done and said by the deceased were that she had, at some stage, poked the defendant in the eye or eyes and had, in the heat of the struggle, said something to the effect, taken at its highest, that if he did not kill her she would kill his wife and sons.  According to the evidence of Dr Lau Ming-fai, the Government Pathologist, the fatal strangling of the deceased would have taken several minutes.  In his interviews with the police the defendant similarly estimated the time taken as being a few minutes.

     I bear in mind the deliberate killing of a human being or the deliberate causing of grievous bodily harm, is quite plainly a very serious matter.  In my view, depending on the circumstances, manslaughter by reason of provocation would normally attract a sentence greater than other forms of manslaughter.  That is because the specific intent necessary to establish the offence of murder has been proven.

     In the present case, the defendant's loss of control resulted in the slow and deliberate strangulation of the deceased over a period of minutes.  The specific intent required for murder was therefore maintained for a considerable time.  The provocation offered to the defendant by the deceased was, in its context, out of proportion to the sustained and deadly reaction of the defendant.

     Mr Andrews submits, in mitigation, that the defendant displayed considerable remorse for his actions after the death of the deceased.  I do not think there was any great display of remorse.  The defendant left the deceased lying in her room with the curtain still tied around her neck.  He made no attempt to assist her or to call for assistance.  He left the room after turning the lights off and after allowing the door to lock behind him.  He fled to China and returned to Hong Kong only two weeks later when he was arrested at Lo Wu.

     Bearing the circumstances of this case in mind, I do not take a starting point of sentence, it is not appropriate in this case, and I sentence the defendant to 12 years' imprisonment.