CRIMINAL CASE NO. 281 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.
The defendant, married, with his own family, had a relationship with the victim’s mother. For a year, various loans were made by him to her. On the evening in question, the woman, the mother, was again asking for money. A number of calls were made for the defendant to meet and give the victim money for such things as paying for the electricity bill and buying food. Yet all the victim received was $100 and only when she returned to the defendant for a second time.
This dissatisfied the mother who, once again, called the defendant and was promised $3,000 if she would send the victim round again. As it turned out, the defendant did nothing but talk about her mother’s demands and, when the victim stood up to leave after 10 minutes, he started attacking her with a knife. The attack stopped only when a passer-by shouted out at the defendant who then sat down and cut his own throat. Beside him were one knife, one cutter, two suicide notes and one letter complaining of his inability to get his money back from the victim’s mother.
In the end, the defendant was found to have his left anterior jugular vein lacerated. He was operated on and hospitalised for two days.
Under caution, he admitted that the promise of $3,000 was but an excuse for the victim’s mother to send her daughter back. He had wanted to persuade the victim to tell her mother to return his money. When the victim showed no interest, however, he became angry. He said he would kill her but, in fact, did not have that intention. Had he wanted to kill her, he would not have stopped and let her escape. In fact, his very first idea on that evening was to get even by attacking the victim but he desisted and even gave her $100. It was only later on and in the circumstances just described that he lashed out at her.
As regards the victim, 14 years of age at the time of the incident, she suffered multiple injuries on her neck, shoulder, chest and back. More importantly, her right internal mammary artery was found to be torn, leading to a massive haemothorax. She was operated on, admitted into the Intensive Care Unit and was not discharged until 11 days after the incident.
Her left hand and right thumb, I should add, were badly cut and required the repair of the relevant tendons and/or muscles for the return of their proper function. All these have left behind a more than minimal number of unsightly scars, some of which are difficult to hide during the summer months, such as those on her front of neck and left shoulder.
Psychologically, apart from a strong manifestation of avoidance, such as her unwillingness to talk about the attack in detail, a report dated 20 January 2012 indicated no symptoms of post-traumatic disorder on the victim’s part. That said, the author of that report was wary of jumping to any conclusion. She said it was difficult to give a definitive judgment on her future adjustment and mental status with the sole reliance on her current functioning.
The defendant is aged 45, married with one daughter and has a hitherto clear record. He was born and educated up to secondary 6 level in the mainland. In 2001, he moved to Hong Kong and, in the same year, divorced his Hong Kong wife. In 2003, he married his second wife, a mainlander and the mother of a daughter.
Their relationship turned sour, however, when, beginning in September 2009, the defendant fell into financial difficulty, having to meet the victim’s mother’s demands for loans. These loans, counsel said, were in fact moneys to keep this woman quiet about a sexual relationship that, alas, took place only once but which amounted to a total of $200,000, all borrowed from financial institutions within the short period of a year, the repayment of which put the defendant at his wits’ end, working merely as an air-conditioning mechanic.
So at the time of the incident, the defendant was a highly-strung person, stressed to the limit both financially and in his marital problems and thinking constantly of suicide. When he attacked the victim, he was provoked into a frenzy by the victim’s cavalier attitude. That is his mitigation.
In my judgment, what the defendant did was horrifying and cowardly. Even if what he now says is true, it was still not for him to take the law into his own hands in a way that was completely out of synch with both the nature and extent of what wrong the victim’s mother had allegedly dealt him, namely blackmail. It was not for him to take his grievance out on a teenager one-third his age and who had nothing directly to do with his situation.
I should add that although it may be true that he desisted at one stage, he conceded the idea of harming the victim at least after arriving at the scene. That is what he admitted in the cautioned statement. The same was repeated by counsel and I find it very hard to believe that in giving out the false promise of $3,000, all he had intended to do was talk to the victim.
In sum, I do not accept that the attack was completely spontaneous. If he was provoked into a frenzy at the time of the attack, it was he who put himself in that situation. Apart from the immediate trauma, his action has left scars on the victim, possibly psychologically, but even in terms of physical appearance, the scars are certainly not something that she could bear with a dismissive lightness of heart for the rest of her young to middle life, to say the least.
In the circumstances, a starting point of 8 years, in my judgment, is appropriate. Given his guilty plea, it will be reduced by one-third to 5 years and 4 months. But that is all the discount that I can justifiably give.
The defendant will go to prison for 5 years and 4 months.