In the present case, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted murder of his three children aged 6, 4 and 2 at the time. On the night in question, he took his youngest child to sleep in his bedroom with him and the other two children. In the early hours, the youngest child was heard crying and the domestic helper took him to her own bedroom. She smelt smoke in the defendant’s bedroom but thought it was related to worshipping.
The incident was discovered when the wife, who had already moved out, hurried home on receiving a phone call from the defendant’s business partner complaining about his absence. She found smoke emitting from the defendant’s bedroom. One child had wetted her trousers, and the other had some saliva and white foam near his mouth. Charcoal was still burning in the bedroom at that time, and only the eldest of the children was responsive.
The defendant said under caution that he was in debt and had suicidal idea. He admitted to purchasing charcoal that evening before, and having consumed alcohol and taken sleeping pills, he tried to die with his children, thinking that no one would take care of them if he died.
CCTV at a supermarket captured the defendant leaving with two bags of charcoal at around 7.23 pm the day before. None of the children suffered resulting physical harm or disability. In fact, the victim impact report of the eldest daughter shows that she does not suffer post-traumatic stress reactions but spoke fondly of the defendant instead.
Background of the Defendant and Mitigation
Defendant is now aged 37. He has a clear record. He had an extramarital affair. When he and his wife had a heated argument, he slapped her. His wife moved out and he was subject to a binding-over order over domestic violence. He ran a delivery business but was in heavy debt before the incident. He developed a drinking problem. He is diagnosed to have alcohol dependence syndrome causing mental and behavioural disorder. Otherwise, he does not suffer from other psychiatric illness.
After this incident, his wife filed divorce proceedings in late 2017, and the defendant consented to her having custody of the children. She said that she had forgiven him although she could not understand why he would want to kill the children as he had always been a caring father. She begged for leniency on his behalf, saying that she would not want the children to grow up in his absence.
Clinical psychologist is of the view that the present offence is related to his adjustment disorder, maladaptive coping skills and inadequate consequential thinking. He is perceived to have a reckless personality with limited resources to cope with stress and frustrations, and so he resorted to overdrinking and substance abuse. The psychologist found these to be matters of genuine concern and that his risk of re-offending is present unless he could desist from the maladaptive use of alcohol.
In mitigation, counsel asks me to take into account the disruptive effect of the father’s incarceration on the children and that after sentencing, the time that the children can visit him will be largely diminished. Counsel asks me to view this incident as circumstances got the better of him and asks the court to temper justice with mercy in sentencing.
Sentencing
Courts do not condone the taking of human lives or the attempts to do so. The courts are the last line of defence for defenceless children. No parent has the right to decide whether their children should live or die. Whatever predicament an adult faces, there is absolutely no justification for taking the lives of his or her own child. Any such endeavour must meet with deterrence not just to deter the defendant from repeating the same but to reflect public abhorrence and as a deterrence to the public.
This case is to be distinguished from the case of 黃宝珠, a case back in 2014 when the sole intention of the defendant there was to commit suicide but unbeknown to herself, she had exposed her 9-year-old son to danger. In that case, the original charge of attempted murder was not pursued, and the defendant was sentenced on a charge of exposing a child in a manner likely to cause injury to health instead.
In this case here, it is not a spontaneous or spur-of-the-moment attempt to kill. It is also not a case where a man who was no stranger to the mental-health service was suddenly overwhelmed with negative emotion when his wife walked out on him. That is the case that I have dealt with in CHM, a 2017 case. The other case, also one of mine quoted by Mr Grounds, CSK, also 2017 case, relates to one count of wilful assault causing injury to a child which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Here, the defendant’s wife left the matrimonial home some four months prior to the incident. The two bags of charcoal were purchased by the defendant at around 7.30 pm the evening before, and according to him, he went to bed with the three children, woke up at the small hours and ignited the charcoal. No matter what the trigger was that caused him to purchase the charcoal, there is premeditation in this case. At no time did he desist from that idea.
The commission of the offence under voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol is an aggravating factor. Alcohol is a solvent which, if addicted to or misused, dissolves marriages, families and careers.
Another aggravating feature in this case is that it involves three children of very tender age. Whilst the actual harm caused was negligible, I pause to add here that it was sheer luck in this case as the wife came back in time. The nature of the offence itself demonstrated a high level of culpability as the seriousness is in the nature of any harm that the offence was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused.
Whilst I am not untouched by mitigation letter written by the defendant’s eldest daughter, especially what she said about missing him and would hug the letters he sent her, I could vividly conjure up the picture of her doing so. I do not for a moment doubt that he has been a caring father to the children. However, the degree of his criminal responsibility in the present case is not to be taken lightly.
I heard what counsel said about the importance of a father’s presence to provide guidance and financial support to the young children in their formative years. It is never too late for him to make amends after he has served his time. He will then, hopefully, be able to exercise self-control, manage his stress and become more disciplined. It is only when he becomes a better man that he will be in a position to protect his own children and to provide guiding light to show them the way.
I judge that a 12-year starting point is the appropriate starting point in the present case. On his plea, he is given the full one-third discount, and he goes to prison for 8 years. That is the sentence that I pass on each count, to run concurrently. I will not make any separate order as to his breach of binding over.