|
HCCC 331/2017
[2019] HKCFI 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 331 OF 2017
-----------------
------------------
| Before: |
DHCJ Stuart-Moore |
| Date: |
19 July 2019 at 4.31 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Martyn Richmond and Mr Kelvin K Y Man, on fiat,
instructed by the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
The defendant appeared in person |
--------------------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
--------------------------------------------
COURT:
This case has the longest history behind it for a murder trial of any I have come across. The killing occurred on 29 April 2009, which is over 10 years ago. The defendant was arrested very soon afterwards. He had been caught virtually red-handed. He was covered in blood and admitted what he had done to his own brother. The large and heavy chopper that he used in this crime lay on the floor close to where his girlfriend, who was just 19 years old, lay dead on the bed, where he had chopped her to death. There were numerous sprays of blood on the wall beside the bed. These had come from the blade of the knife as it came down again and again to strike the girl and, not surprisingly, the cause of death was massive blood loss. The chopper was extremely sharp and had never been used before.
This defendant was tried for murder in May 2010 and after an 11-day trial, he was convicted by the jury. But in 2011, at an appeal in the Court of Appeal, the defendant’s appeal was allowed and a retrial was ordered. The retrial took place later in 2011 and after an 8-day trial, the jury convicted the defendant of murder. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed in 2012. 4 years went by and for reasons connected with a mix-up over Legal Aid, the defendant was able to apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal to that court. By that stage, the Court of Final Appeal had slightly altered the law of provocation and so by pure chance, he got leave to appeal on a completely new ground.
In 2017, his appeal was allowed and a retrial again ordered. On 31 October last year, 2018, a third jury was empanelled but on the following day, 1 November, the defendant dispensed with the services of senior counsel, Mr McCoy, and the solicitors who had been instructed to act for him. Fresh counsel was given to the defendant but he dismissed them as well and the new solicitors. He stated he wished to act in person and so it is that that judge discharged the jury and a new date was fixed which brings us to this trial now in 2019.
The case came before me as a trial on 5 July, just a few days ago. There was again new counsel, extremely experienced counsel. He made an argument on some admissibility which we do not need to look into now, but by the Monday, 8 July, the barrister was dismissed and the solicitors because the defendant expressed the desire to act for himself. He made it clear that there was no complaint whatsoever about counsel or the solicitors. He just did not want to be represented by lawyers.
The defendant made some submissions of his own before the jury who are presently in court now were sworn in on 10 July. Today is the eighth day of the trial. Although the jury went out yesterday, they had to continue their deliberations today as they were not ready last night.
Much of the defendant’s story about provocation given to this jury was never given before. He had made up what was obviously a better story than in his previous trials. In his first trial he spoke about thinking that his girlfriend had become some kind of monster with the head of a pig that he was fighting and he put up some mental defence. In the second trial, he did not say half the things that he said about provocation that he said in this case and the jury may well say, “Why weren’t we told any of this?” And, in fact, I ask myself the same question.
It’s often said that the children of a parent who is abusive are often the same themselves later in their lives.
Mr Tam, would you stand, please.
Your father used to hit your mother, but at least he left her alive. This was a savage and merciless attack on a completely defenceless young girl who at the time thought she was your girlfriend. She received approximately 50 cut wounds and you obviously have a terrible temper and the evidence shows that you were extremely possessive and very jealous. Your jealously, in fact, was extreme. Your suspicions about your brother having some sort of an affair with your girlfriend were completely ill-founded but it seems that she died because she could not convince you that she was innocent of what you were saying.
Your jealous, possessive nature makes you really quite dangerous because when she would not admit the affair with your brother, you killed her. How you could possibly think with all those blows to her body that you were not going to kill her, I cannot imagine. And now you know from your own brother that there was nothing in an affair between him and your girlfriend, which is what she was trying to tell you. And when she stayed silent for a time, you took that as what you call a tacit confession.
So appalled at what you had done, you tried to commit suicide and anybody else hearing these facts would be totally appalled as well. This was the clearest case of murder and you know perfectly well that there is only one sentence for murder. You must go to prison for life.
|