HKSAR v. TSEUNG TING

DCCC741/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 741 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.   The Defendant pleads guilty to two charges:  criminal damage, contrary to section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 (Charge 1), and wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212.

2.   In January 2011, the defendant came to know Mr Liu Siu-wa, the victim, via an Internet chatroom.  Although the defendant was married, she soon developed an extra-marital affair with the victim.

3.   In June 2012, the victim noticed that the defendant was playing online games with other males and asked her if she was having another affair.  The defendant said that the victim knew that she was married and accused him of not giving her any money to spend.  The defendant then asked the victim to give her some money to see a doctor, which the victim did.

4.   However the victim found that the defendant was still playing online games with other males and their relationship deteriorated.

5.   In the morning of 3 July 2012, the victim sent a message to the defendant, asking if she was dating another male.  A text message argument ensued when the victim told the defendant that she had to answer to her husband and the defendant replied that she did not care and asked the victim to go ahead and tell her husband.

6.   At about 6 pm on the same day, the victim became agitated when he saw on the Internet that the defendant was playing online games with other males again.

7.   He then sent a message to the defendant’s husband telling him that he had given the defendant money to see a doctor and that his wife was now having an affair with another male.  He asked the defendant’s husband to look out for himself.

8.   At about 10 pm on the same day, the victim was asleep at home.  Suddenly, he heard very loud banging on his door and the defendant shouting outside.

9.   When the victim approached the main door of the flat, a window next to the main door was smashed.

10.   The victim opened the main door and saw the defendant holding a 12-inch chopper in her right hand outside his flat. The defendant then used the chopper to chop the victim.  The victim tried to dodge the attack but the chopper still struck his left shoulder.  The victim grabbed the defendant’s right hand tightly with both hands.

11.   The defendant shouted that she had chopped the victim because her husband had asked for a divorce as a result of the victim’s message.  A struggle ensued.  The chopper fell to the ground.

12.   Both the defendant and the victim made a report to the police.

13.   Subsequently, the victim found that apart from the smashed window, there were also chop marks in the middle part of his main door.

14.   The defendant was arrested for wounding and criminal damage.

15.   Under caution, the defendant told WPC 5247 that she wanted to end the relationship with the victim.  She admitted using the chopper to chop the victim because the victim had sent a message to her husband and her husband had asked for a divorce.

16.   Upon medical examination, the victim was diagnosed to have suffered abrasion wounds over his left shoulder, left arm, left forearm and right dorsum, and a fracture to the left lower tooth.

17.   In a subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that:

(1) she and the victim became lovers about a year ago;

(2) she wanted to end the relationship in about June 2012 and had since ignored the victim;

(3) the victim then told her that he would tell the defendant’s husband about their affair and she told the victim that she did not care;

(4) on the material day, the victim sent a message to the defendant’s husband, telling him about their affair. Her husband then asked for a divorce;

(5) she then took the chopper from the kitchen and went to the victim’s home;

(6) when she arrived at the victim’s home, she banged on the door persistently but the victim refused to open the door. She, therefore, used the chopper to chop the door and smash a window next to the door;

(7) after the victim opened the door, the defendant used the chopper to chop him;

(8) a struggle ensued and the chopper was dropped.

Mitigation and background

18.   The defendant is 40 years old, married with two children aged 8 and 14.  Her husband is a construction worker.  The defendant was born in Hunan and settled in Hong Kong in 2001.  Prior to her emigration, she overstayed in Hong Kong and was convicted for overstaying in 1997.

19.   Counsel submitted that the defendant had an affair with the victim at the time when her relationship with her husband was very bad.  After the victim disclosed their relationship to the defendant’s husband, the defendant took a chopper from the kitchen, took a five-minute taxi ride to the victim’s home and committed the two offences.

20.   Counsel submitted that there was no careful planning and the defendant was merely acting out of anger and impulse. She obviously did not have any intention of injuring the victim seriously.  She ceased the attack as soon as the chopper fell to the floor.  She also reported the matter to the police and waited for their arrival at scene.

21.   The victim’s injuries were not very serious.  He was treated and discharged on the same day.

22.   The defendant has now reconciled with her husband and wishes to resume her duties as a wife and mother.

23.   There was a series of letters from friends and neighbours, telling the court that this was an isolated incident and out of character.  They all commented that the defendant was good wife, mother, friend and neighbour.

24.   The victim has also written a letter to say that he has forgiven the defendant.

25.   In all those circumstances, counsel urged the court to be lenient.

Reasons for sentence

26.   In passing sentence, I have considered everything put forward on the defendant’s behalf.

27.   I am also indebted to counsel for both parties for their research on sentence.  There is no tariff for this type of cases.  The normal range of sentence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.  The sentence in each case depends on the facts. 

28.   It is rather strange that everyone, including the victim, the defendant’s friends and neighbours, appears to only blame the victim for disclosing their affair.  The damage was caused when the defendant decided to have an extra-marital affair.  She was the one who decided to jeopardise her family and her marriage.  There was always a risk of the husband finding out the truth.

29.   The defendant was described as a devoted mother, yet according to the admitted summary of facts, she spent most of her time chatting to strange men on the Internet.

30.   I have grave doubts as to the judgment of her character by her friends and neighbours.  If she cared about her marriage and family, she would not have acted in the way that she did.

31.   However, in the present case, I accept that the victim’s actions were vengeful and malicious.  The defendant had overreacted when she found out about the victim’s message to her husband.

32.   I also accepted that she ceased the attack on the victim soon after he was injured and that the injuries were not very serious.  The defendant reported the matter to the police and waited for their arrival.

33.   In all the circumstances, for Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment.

34.   I give the defendant full credit for her guilty plea.  The sentence is reduced to 4 months.

35.   For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 3 years. 

36.   After giving the defendant full credit for her guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years.

37.   Both charges are part and parcel of the same incident. 

38.   I order that the sentences be served concurrently:  that makes a total sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.