On 13 October 2019, the victim who was a uniformed police officer was on duty together with his colleagues to deal with social unrest in the vicinity of Kwun Tong MTR station. At the conclusion of a search at the Kwun Tong MTR station, police officers retreated back to the APM Shopping Mall. They were passing through a large crowd of protesters who gathered on the footbridge to the APM Shopping Mall.
Police officers were walking in a single file and that the victim was at the end of the line. The defendant who was present with the crowd suddenly dashed forward and stabbed the right neck of the victim with a cutter once. One of the photographs presented to the court depicted the weapon used.
After the attack, the defendant tried to flee but was stopped by the victim. Soon, other police officers came to the victim’s assistance and that the defendant was eventually subdued. The incident was captured by a number of open-source video footage. After his arrest, a search was conducted at the defendant’s residence. An undated will bearing the defendant’s name and signature was found.
As the victim was found to be bleeding profusely at the scene, he was rushed to hospital and admitted into the intensive care unit. A 3.5 centimetre open wound was found at the right posterolateral neck at the level of the thyroid cartilage. CT scan showed the right internal jugular vein was 80 per cent severed. The right vagus nerve was completely cut off. The right middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle was cut too. Emergency operation was performed.
On 16 October 2019, the victim was transferred to the Union Hospital for further treatment. Further treatment/operations were given. Endoscopic examination revealed persistent right vocal cord paralysis. According to medical opinions, the chance of a full recovery of the paralysed vocal cord was slim. A certain degree of long‑term deficits was expected.
Dr Lai Sai-chak, forensic pathologist, opined that the stab wound to the neck was dangerous as it might cause serious injuries to the major blood vessels such as the carotid arteries, the jugular vein and the airway. The cutting of the vagus nerve resulted in the hoarseness of the voice. Had the cut inflicted shifted one centimetre towards the carotid artery, the artery would be completely severed. If untreated, a 100 per cent mortality rate was expected.
Victim impact report indicated that the victim had undergone two more surgeries in December 2019 and April 2020 in attempts to restore his vocal cord injury. He eventually resumed working in June 2020.
As of November 2021, when the victim impact assessment report was prepared, the victim still suffered from: one, permanent numbness arising from the nerve injuries; two, vivid memories of pain and suffering caused to himself; three, his worry about threat being made to his family and children. It seems clear that the victim needed to live and cope with that for the rest of his life.
This is again another senseless episode of violence that took place in Hong Kong during 2019. I simply wish to emphasise what I had said in HKSAR v Liu Guosheng, HCCC 225/2020, “Whatever one’s political belief, the use of violence must be condemned. There is simply no place in our society. Violence does not and will not resolve any political differences, it only escalates conflicts resulting in fatality and casualty.”
The defendant is now 21, a Form 6 student at the time. He was born in mainland China and came to Hong Kong when he was 11. Judging from mitigating letters provided in court both from his family and teachers, the defendant was not a violent person and was generally a well-liked student prior to this incident, not a violent person.
Mr Phil Chau, Senior Counsel, for the defendant, provided this court with a psychiatric report prepared by one Dr Wong for the defendant. In it, it was stated that the defendant has suffered from autism spectrum disorder. Mr Chau, however, informed the court that the report was provided to explain the possible behaviour of the defendant on the day in question. Mr Chau stressed that he was not suggesting that the defendant was suffering from any significant mental illness which might cloud the defendant’s judgment and asking for any discount based on that disorder.
There is no sentencing guideline for this offence. Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a very serious offence which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Its seriousness can be discerned from the fact that wounding with intent is a sufficient mens rea for the offence of murder. It therefore comes with no surprise that the defendant was charged for attempted murder in the first place.
In sentencing, the court is required to consider a host of factors which I have already outlined in the case of Liu Guosheng where the defendant stabbed a young person in the vicinity of Tai Po MTR Station for, again, political reasons.
Although the victim was randomly selected in the present case, the attack was a premeditated one. The defendant went to Kwun Tong that day with one purpose only, namely to participate in a protest against the government. That can be seen from the personal clothing he wore and the objects he carried. Among those objects, he carried with him a potential lethal weapon, ie the cutter. This cutter was not a small one but one with a blade width of at least 2.5 centimetres, possibly an industrial use cutter.
The attack on the victim was an unprovoked attack, given the police officer was retreating. There was also no confrontation the police had with the defendant or in particular the crowd on the footbridge.
One substantial aggravating feature of the attack was that it was targeted at police officers. The court has on numerous occasions stressed that it had a duty to protect officers of law enforcement agencies whilst executing their duties. The defendant’s act was the most severe form of attack on police officers. The victim only escaped his death by a mere few millimetres miss or a few degree twist. As mentioned, the victim was retreating with his colleagues. There was no prior conflict or dispute between the two. There was also nothing indicating any provocation on the part of the police on that day.
The level of force or aggression was high in the sense that the intention of the defendant was clear. He aimed his weapon to the most vulnerable part of the victim. The defendant was also determined in the sense that he even had prepared his own will.
Unlike the case of Liu Guosheng, the attack in the present case was only one‑off because he was soon subdued by police officers. In terms of persistency, the level is less in the present case. In terms of seriousness of injuries, the physical injuries caused to the victim are confined essentially to his hoarseness of his voice, again is a lesser level in comparison with the case of Liu Guosheng. The psychiatric and psychological effects caused both to the victim and to his family are also less long-lasting and significant.
However, in this case threats had been received not only by the victim but towards his family which in turn caused the victim’s children to change school and to sever their social ties with their schoolmates. That, of course, had nothing to do with you, the defendant. Those responsible for targeting innocent young children should be pursued rigorously.
After two years in custody and with the assistance of social workers, school teachers, family and friends, I believe the defendant has come to learn of his mistake. I sincerely hope the remorse he has shown is a genuine one and that the defendant will spend his time productively inside the prison and turn a new leaf by the time of his release.
Having said that, the offence the defendant committed remains a serious one. I understand the family’s wish but I am required to strike a balance and pass an appropriate sentence in light of all the circumstances of the case.
Although the persistence of his act and the seriousness of the injuries are less than Liu Guosheng, it nevertheless cannot escape the fact that this was a vicious attack on public officers who need our protection in performing their duties. A starting point of 10 years is adopted.
The defendant indicated his plea after trial date had been set. A 22.5 per cent discount will be given.