COURT: The defendant was 18 when this offence was committed and he is now, today, 19. The offence of attempted murder, which he has admitted, occurred on 8 May 2012. This was done out of a desire, it seems, for revenge. About four months earlier, the defendant had been scolded at work by the 51-year-old victim of this attack who had hit the defendant on the head, not particularly hard, it seems, and arising from some comparatively trivial incident at work. The victim at that time was the employer of the defendant.
In fact, after that scolding, the defendant continued to work for quite a number of weeks without any real further incident. In late January 2012, the defendant said that he wished to resign from his job for personal reasons and it seems to be clear that he never really enjoyed the job he had been doing and was only doing it because of his father’s insistence.
In any event, after that time, there were three occasions at least, in February 2012, when the defendant went to the victim’s address and waited on the staircase, wearing a mask and a jacket with a hood over his head. One resident was sufficiently worried by the defendant appearing on the staircase day after day that he reported the matter to the police.
On 28 February, the defendant was arrested by the police. They found that not only was he wearing the clothing I have described but also wearing surgical gloves on his hands and in his possession was found a knife with a 5-inch blade. His explanation to the police for having a knife was that he was wanting to scare someone who would go past. It hardly needs to be said that that was just a cover story to conceal his true motive.
In any event, he was kept in custody for a fortnight at that time, up until 15 March. Then he was given bail and was supposed to reappear at the Fanling Magistrates Court on 14 May. However, in early May, the defendant again began to go to the staircase of the building where the victim lives. He would sit there with his head lowered and, as it turns out, the victim walked past him twice without recognising the defendant.
On 8 May, the victim went home at about 9 o'clock, having closed his shop. The defendant was once again waiting for him at the staircase and it was on this occasion that the defendant tried to kill his ex-employer. The attack was carried out with a knife and the defendant was able to inflict multiple lacerations on his victim. The victim may owe his life to the timely intervention of a member of the public who I propose to refer to later on.
Turning for a moment to the latest psychiatric reports which I have in front of me, these were ordered on 15 October. I was concerned, when I ordered those reports, at the high degree of pent-up anger felt by the defendant against the victim over something so trivial as a mild scolding at work several months earlier. In other words, he not only harboured a grudge over something very minor, but he did so to the extent that he even tried to kill the person who had given rise to that grudge.
Furthermore, I had seen from reports prepared by Drs Dorothy Tang and Amy Liu, who are both visiting psychiatrists at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, that in their opinion, the defendant had “a high propensity to violence in view of his unpredictability” - that is page 2 of the report made by Dr Tang dated 23 May 2012 - and that the defendant “was observed to be remorseless and lacking empathy towards the victim. He has a very high propensity to serious violence” - that is the second page of Dr Liu’s earlier report dated 23 May last year.
I have also seen the recording made by a woman member of the public on her mobile phone, showing part of the defendant’s attack on the victim. This was recorded right outside the building where the victim lived and there is no doubt at all that this was an extremely violent and very determined attack. So I now have the advantage of the latest psychiatric reports, again from the same two doctors and I am grateful to Dr Liu and Dr Tang for their most helpful reports.
It is plain from these that no formal psychiatric illness could be detected in the defendant. It is equally plain that the defendant, right up to this day, demonstrates no real remorse over the commission of this offence. He even expressed to one of the doctors, to quote from Dr Liu’s report in fact, that it was unfortunate that he could not finish the act he had planned for so long.
He claimed also to the psychiatrist that he had, on 14 or 15 occasions, decided to kill the victim in the street out of his revenge motive, but he either, on those occasions, lacked the courage or the victim was in the company of someone else. He explained how he would wait in the street for no more than 30 minutes in case he gave rise to suspicion on the part of passers-by. In any event, it was after those attempts that he went back to sitting on the staircase at the victim’s home.
Also emerging from the reports and by way of more general background, it appears that the defendant had a poor academic record. He had a rebellious nature which had led to arguments with his parents, and he over-indulged in television games. In essence, he has personality difficulties; he is stubborn; he is introverted and self-centred. Perhaps the one positive thing emerging from the reports, as Mr Cahill was right to emphasise, is that the defendant at least has stated that he has given up the idea of hurting the victim when, in due course, he is released back into society.
There is very little mitigation in a case as serious as this, where it was the defendant’s actual intention to kill his victim. The most that can really be said is that he has admitted his guilt. In addition, by good fortune, the victim received relatively light injuries, though it was not for want of trying on the part of the defendant who was only stopped from doing what he was doing by a member of the public.
It has to be remembered that when the ambulance-men found the victim, the victim was only half conscious and had to be kept in hospital for six days, following an operation and two blood transfusions. The victim had a very lucky escape.
Mr Chau, would you stand, please. For planned and determined violence on the scale that you intended and, in part, were able to carry out, a sentence after trial, I consider, would have been no less than 15 years’ imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty and you will receive the full benefit for that.
Your sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.