HKSAR v. WONG YUN WAN

 DCCC873/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.873 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged for 2 counts of sending a letter threatening to murder or kill a person, contrary to section 15 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212.

The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts, and confirmed that he intended the recipient of the letters to be scare so as to get what he wanted. He is convicted accordingly.

Facts

On 18 May 2010 the defendant sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police. In that letter D indicated that his complaint against senior inspector Chau Wai-pun (PW2) could not be resolved over the past 7 years and he would kill police officers as retaliation. D asked the police to take action against PW2 within 30 days or otherwise he would carry out his plan to kill police officers.

PW2 was shown the letter on 9 June, he vaguely recalled that he had arrested D in 2003 in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. Having been shown the letter, PW2 was alarmed and worried about his own safety and concerned that D might cause serious or fatal injury to him.

On 15 June 2010 the defendant sent another letter to the commissioner of Police. In that second letter, D stated that the deadline to reply his earlier letter was approaching and he had not heard from the Commissioner. D indicated that the government had failed to respond to his complaints throughout the years. Hence, he would use his blood and life to resist the government which had coerced him to be a rioter and a police killer. D further threatened to take all steps to take revenge including wounding and killing innocent police officers. D stated that he would go to the Police Headquarters to meet the Commissioner on 23 June at 2PM.

The second letter was shown to PW2 on 18 June 2010. PW2 was anxiously worried that D’s killing threat would materialize.

At around 1:55pm on 23 June as indicated in his second letter, D went to the Police Headquarters and asked to meet the Commissioner but did not disclose his reason. D was took to the Central Police Station where SSGT Cheung (PW4) took over the matter, D told PW4 he wanted to meet the Commissioner because he wanted to air his grievances towards the wrongful arrest by the Police 7 years ago and shown copies of the abovementioned letters to PW4. The matter was took over by SSGT Hau (PW5), D repeated his request and shown the said copies of letters to PW5 again. PW5 told D that his request had been relayed to the supervisors and the Commissioner would not meet him that day. D indicated that he would ask to meet the Commissioner again on 29 June.

Later on 23 June D called the Security Bureau and asked to meet with the Secretary for Security, he reiterated that he had been coerced by the police and the government. D stated that if he did not receive any response from the police, he would kill innocent police officers.

D was arrested on 24 June 2010. Under caution, D admitted that the purpose of the letters was to vent his anger against PW2 for his abuse of power and wrong decision in 2003; and he would not merely write letter but would also take action. He would eventually use a vehicle to bump into police officers.

At the material times, D, maliciously knowing the contents thereof, sent the two letters to the Commissioner threatening to murder or kill police officers.

The defendant aged 51, with 2 previous conviction records. The defendant has two marriages; he is a part-time taxi driver prior arrest. The children in his first marriage are all independent now, and he lives with his second wife. Although he has limited income, he made regular charity donation.

Two psychiatric reports were called for the defendant. The defendant was diagnosed with depression, currently in remission. He has definite personality problems, but no other psychotic symptoms. Physically, he suffers from Diabetes Mellitus, with regular medical follow-up. Inpatient psychiatric care is not necessary but recommended further out-patient treatment.

The mitigation letters from family, friends, colleagues, legislative council members, shown that all regard the defendant be a good and gentle person, and many believed this case is an act out of his character and caused by his medical condition.

I have gone through the written submission and mitigation by the defendant. As I have confirmed with his intention before I accepted his plea, I would disregard any reference that he was not acting maliciously at the material time. I noted an observation stated in one of the defendant’s mitigation letter “Mr Wong appeared to be a person of mild character, but he went to the extreme with his thoughts and took it as right. He lacked self-awareness and the power of understanding the external environment. When faced with difficulties, he did not have in mind to find assistance but darting around, putting himself into a state of distress and anxiety and could not get out of it.” In light with the content of the defendant’s own written submission and mitigation, I consider this to be a fair comment on the defendant. I do not consider the present case is an act out of character.

It revealed from one of the psychiatric reports that in the 2003 criminal intimidation the defendant wrote letters to threaten to set fire at Social Welfare Department(SWD), during his remand for psychiatric reports for that case, he stated that he did it because the SWD was not considerate during procedure of his application of social security allowance. For that case the defendant was convicted and given a suspended sentence. It was clear to the defendant that his act was against the law. Yet, the defendant adopted the same modus operandi again and made out a more serious fatal threat so as to get what he wanted.

We have privilege to live in a civilized society and are well protected by the rule of law. Without commenting on the 2003 incident, if the defendant suffered or believed he has suffered genuine grievance from any wrongful act, or he has been wrongly convicted, he should obtain his redress through proper channel and not by malicious threat to kill anyone, let alone, quoting the defendant’s own words, innocent police officers. No one is allowed to take or attempt to take the law into his own hands. The court is under a duty to send clear message to those who mind to do so.

I noted the defendant not only sent out the letters but also acted as indicated in his second letter and made a call to reinforce his threat when he was not able to see the Commissioner. After due consideration, I consider the appropriate starting point for each of the charge to be one of 21 months imprisonment.

The defendant was remanded since his arrest. In oral mitigation he admitted that he has used a wrong way to seek assistance. He said he would be sincere in reforming himself and would not commit similar offence again. He urged the court to understand his situation, consider his age, mental condition and poor physical health and pass a lenient sentence. Taking into account of his medical condition as a whole, I reduce the starting point by 6 months. The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea. I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor called for further deduction. However, I consider the 2 letters are part and partial the same transaction, and order both sentence to run concurrently.

Order

Charge 1 sentenced to 10 months imprisonment

Charge 2 sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, concurrent with charge 1, making a total of 10 months.

The defendant is to receive appropriate psychiatric treatment during his remand.