HKSAR v. LEUNG KAM SING

HCCC 125/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 125 OF 2014

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of throwing corrosive fluid with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

The defendant and his three victims were keepers of fruit stalls in Cheung Sha Wan, Po On Road, Market. On the day in question a dispute arose between PW1 and the defendant over a trolley placed by the defendant outside PW1’s stall. He verbally threatened to spray PW1 where PW1 pushed the trolley back towards his stall and took a bottle and sprayed some liquid from a distance of 2 metres at PW1’s face.

PW2 who was outside PW1’s stall was also sprayed at. When the defendant saw that PW3 was trying to call the police with a mobile phone, he went towards her and also sprayed her.

During this incident other bystanders were also sprayed.

Under caution the defendant admitted to have sprayed a drain cleaning liquid because he said he was being interfered with. He told the police that he bore a grudge against PW3 who caused him to be arrested and bound over about a year ago. He admitted to have gone to buy the drain cleaning liquid that morning, although he had thought about using a knife to take revenge of the bullying by PW1 to PW3. He said at the material time he was agitated and therefore put the spray nozzle on and sprayed the liquid at PW1 to PW3 to vent the grudge, but only sprayed others accidentally.

The liquid in question is found to contain 2 millilitres of a black liquid containing sulphuric acid at a concentration of 95 per cent weight by weight. The sulphuric acid at such concentration is highly corrosive and capable of causing severe burn to skin and permanent damage to eyes.

Injuries to PW1 to PW3 are as follows.

PW1 suffered 1% and 2% total body surface area third-degree scald over right and left upper limbs respectively, 2% TBSA second-degree scald over head and neck region, 0.5% TBSA second-degree scald over chest. Skin grafting was required and had been done on both chest and both upper limbs.

PW2 suffered burns to 10 per cent of his total body surface area involving head, neck, trunk, right upper limb and right lower limb ranging from 1.5% to 3%.

PW3 sustained 2.5% of total surface area superficial dermal burn injury at her back and left armpit.

Recent medical reports show that each of them has developed hypertrophic scaring. The other three persons who were accidentally sprayed at had a left forearm first-degree burn, tenderness and chemical scald injury on left forearm, and minor chemical burn injury to upper back respectively.

The defendant himself also suffered chemical burns to his face, 2% total body surface area and also 1% TBSA over left upper limb and 1% TBSA over left lower limb.

By way of mitigation, I am told that the defendant is now aged 58, poorly educated and illiterate, basically a good and mild natured person who was driven to commit the present offences because he did not know how to vent his emotions.

His counsel told this court that the defendant had been operating his stall for over 20 years, but unfortunately the relationship between him and the neighbours turned sour and antagonistic. He thought that he was bullied by his neighbours. He had tried to make complaints to various departments and the management but to no avail. He felt injustice, aggrieved and helpless.

Back in 2012, some things came to a head where the defendant had threatened PW3 with a knife which resulted in him being charged with criminal intimidation. He was eventually bound over for a period of 12 months with a prohibition order prohibiting him from returning to the market where his stall was. He had to quit operating the stall and entrusted his wife, his brother and sister-in-law to operate the stall for him. However, his wife also suffered from mental distress.

He had to seek help from his church and a District Councillor and eventually sought psychiatric help. Counsel submitted that it was indeed unfortunate that on the day in question the defendant only went back there to pick up some stuff and that PW1’s pushing of his trolley triggered this tragic incident when the defendant completely lost control and took the laws into his own hands. Counsel urges the court to sympathise with the predicament of the defendant and pass a lenient sentence on him.

In sentencing the defendant I have taken into account the facts of this case, mitigation forwarded by counsel, authorities submitted as well as peruse the voluminous letters in mitigation.

Whilst the personal background of the defendant leading to the commission of the present offence calls for sympathy, the present case contains the following aggravating features. There was a certain degree of premeditation.

According to what the defendant admitted under caution, on the day in question he first made a complaint to the management to the market when, to now avail, he went to buy the corrosive fluid intending to use it if he were to be bullied again.

It did occur to him to use a knife, but he eventually refrained from doing so because of the possible serious consequence and resorted to using the draining liquid instead. In fact, it was he who put the spray nozzle on before spraying the liquid onto PW1, PW2 and PW3.

The corrosive fluid was highly concentrated at 95% concentration.

I have taken a look at the bottle and although the label was so stained that one could not see the capacity of the bottle, the fact that only 2 millilitres were left shows that a large portion of it has been sprayed be it to the victims or onto the ground.

Some injuries were quite severe as they required skin grafting. Multiple victims were involved. Innocent bystanders were also injured accidentally. The fact that the injuries were not the most serious of its kind is neither here nor there.

I quote the following from Power J in Chan Chi Lun that whether the injury be grave or minor is largely fortuitous and weighs little in favour of the applicant.

In my view, the most significant mitigation in favour of the defendant is his guilty plea.

Taking into account the whole of the background and all the circumstances of the present case, I adopt the global starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment reduced to 6 years by his plea.

I have also taken into account totality, and that although there are three charges they are indeed part and parcel of one single transaction. So on each of the charge, the defendant goes to prison for 6 years. All sentences are to run concurrently.