COURT: The defendant was charged initially with the offence of murder and it was alleged that on the 27th day of September 2021, at the 19th floor of Heng Shan House, Heng On Estate, Ma On Shan, Sha Tin, he murdered Mr Wong Hang-lam. He pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder and was committed to the Court of First Instance for trial on 11 December 2023. On 17 September this year, he pleaded guilty to the alternative offence of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility before me. The plea was also accepted by the prosecution and he was convicted of manslaughter accordingly.
According to the Summary of Facts on his plea, at the material time the defendant and his mother lived in Room 1906 of that particular building in Ma On Shan. The defendant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia since 2018 and he was an outpatient of the psychiatric department of the Prince of Wales Hospital.
The victim was the 84 year-old Mr Wong who lived next door to the defendant. The two of them did not have any previous grudges.
On 27 September 2021, Mr Wong left his home for shopping. His wife, Mrs Wong, was watching him walking down the corridor on the 19th floor towards the lift. When Mr Wong reached outside the premises where the defendant lived, the defendant rushed out and assaulted him with a chopper, hitting him on his head, back, and shoulders. He hit him from behind on multiple occasions. Feeling scared, Mrs Wong immediately closed the door and asked her family to call the police.
The chopped off detached right thumb and left thumb of Mr Wong were found at the scene. A 40-centimetre long blood-stained chopping knife was also found in a metal bucket at the staircase of the building. Mr Wong was rushed to the Prince of Wales Hospital and he was certified dead at 2.14 pm.
According to the finding of the pathologist, he had multiple chop and cut wounds, at least 45 of them, on his body and some of those wounds were deep. The direct cause of death was ‘multiple chop and cut wounds’ and ‘ischaemic heart disease’. The ischaemic disease could render him more vulnerable to the effects of blood loss and blood aspiration from multiple chop and cut wounds.
After the chopping, the defendant wandered in Tsuen Wan area and then he took a taxi to the Prince of Wales Hospital. At the hospital, he confessed to a nurse that he might have hurt someone. Later that afternoon he was arrested at the hospital for the offence of murder. He replied under caution that he had just used a knife to chop and kill an old man because he was annoyed by sound from Mr Wong’s premises.
He stated later in the video-recorded interview that:
- while he saw his neighbour old man next door walking along the corridor, he felt very annoyed and became emotional, so he took a knife from his kitchen and rushed out to chop him.
- He said he attacked Mr Wong because he was annoyed and irritated by the noise made by the upper floor and the next door units everyday over a year. He was out of control.
- He did not have any previous grudge with Mr Wong.
- He just wanted to kill him or anyone living in Room 1905 because of the noise problem and said he would have attacked anyone from Room 1905.
- After he had chopped Mr Wong, he went to the 18th floor to discard the chopping knife, and then he went to the Tsuen Wan Park. He washed his hands and disposed his blood-stained jacket in the toilet.
- He then called his psychiatric nurse and told the nurse that his mental condition was poor, and the nurse advised him to go to the Prince of Wales Hospital to see him.
He had been remanded in custody in the Castle Peak Hospital and Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre since his arrest. According to two psychiatrists, Dr Vanessa Wong and Dr Kavin Chow, who examined him in November 2022, their opinion was that he was suffering from schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusion at the time of the offence.
Two other psychiatrists, Dr Amy Lau and Dr Kimberly Yip of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, also opined that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
The defendant is now 38 years of age. He was born in China and came to Hong Kong in his young age. He had received education up to primary school standard. He is single and lives with his mother before he was arrested.
According to his criminal conviction record, he had a total of seven records including three records for the offences of violence, that is assault occasioning actual bodily harm on two occasions and wounding with intent on one occasion.
In his mitigation, defence counsel Mr Arthur offered a sincere apology on behalf of the defendant to the victim’s family and relatives.
Initially, Mr Arthur informed the court that according to the defendant himself, he expressed the view that he no longer suffers from hallucinations and he could function in the community again.
The defendant himself has also written a letter to the court. He said that on the day of the offence he was suffering from auditory hallucinations and hallucinations as well as other emotions and he could not control his body. He said he felt very remorseful and guilty after the tragedy. He would like to sincerely apologise and say sorry to the victim and his family. He also mentioned about the persistent support and company given by his own family members.
A letter was also written by the mother of the defendant. She expressed her deepest condolences to the victim, and also her sincere apologies and her ashamed feeling to the victim’s family. His mother said that the defendant was raised in a single-parent family and she blamed herself for having overlooked her son. She said as a mother she bear the guilt, but she asked this court to impose as lenient a sentence as possible.
The younger brother and younger sister of the defendant have also written a letter. They expressed their deepest condolences and sincere apologies to the victim’s family and asked this court to give the defendant a chance.
There is no tariff for the offence of manslaughter, especially manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. In order to assist me in sentencing, I have ordered a background report and two updated psychiatric reports on the defendant.
According to the background report, after the defendant had finished studying Form 1 he had worked as a mechanical maintenance apprentice, a salesman at a lifestyle shop for a few months, and then he became unemployed and mainly relied on the comprehensive social security assistance or financial support from his own mother for livelihood.
He was a polysubstance abuser since his teen age and had taken various dangerous drugs including ketamine, cocaine, ‘Ice’, and codeine.
When he was an adolescent, he mixed with bad peers and joined the triad societies in Tsuen Wan area and engaged in various triad activities. Although he had on and off attended psychiatric treatment to cure his mental problem, his mental status fluctuated over the past years.
The first updated psychiatric report was prepared by Dr Amy C Y Liu, a visiting psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. Dr Liu stated that the defendant was known to mental health service since 2014 but at that time he was not diagnosed as suffering from any formal psychiatric illness.
Later from May to July 2015, he was admitted to the Kwai Chung Hospital for his psychiatric condition. And also in the period from December 2018 to January 2019, his case was reactivated and he was admitted to the Tai Po Hospital psychiatric unit. The diagnosis was revised to paranoid schizophrenia.
He told the psychiatrist that on the day of the offence he heard noises from the next door and he saw the deceased who lived next door leaving his home. He said he was furious for being disturbed for the whole day, so he went to the kitchen to get a beef knife and chopped the deceased at his back.
After his arrest the defendant was admitted to the Castle Peak Hospital. He was labelled as an intensive care case in view of the serious violence, and he was subsequently remanded to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre until the present.
In the opinion of Dr Liu, the defendant is diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He also suffered from psychotic symptom persistently after the arrest. The psychiatrist regarded that he was suffering from abnormality of mind at the time of the offence, and the psychotic symptoms that he suffered at the time of the offence is considered as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts at the time of the killing.
Dr Liu said that he is a seriously dangerous person for four reasons. First, he had multiple forensic history involving serious gang violence. Second, he had history of substance abuse which is a well-known risk factor for violence. Third, he all along has the tendency of hiding up symptoms from the treating psychiatrist. And fourthly, he remained carefree when he talked about the present offence.
For his case, Dr Liu opined that it is necessary to have a long period of treatment under hospital order for the consolidation of treatment, rehabilitation, or sometimes with supervised accommodation arrangement. She recommends a hospital order for an unspecified period at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where provision has been made for him.
According to the updated psychiatric report from the second psychiatrist Dr Kimberly Yip Kin-yan, a visiting psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, the defendant is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He had long-standing psychotic symptoms since 2014 and the symptoms had persisted until after his arrest. Dr Yip also regarded the defendant as suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence, and the psychotic symptoms he suffered from at the time is considered as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts at the time of the killing.
Dr Yip opined that he is a person of high violence risk. He has had repeated history of violence and also the tendency to hide up symptoms which contributes greatly to his violence risk. A period of inpatient psychiatric treatment would be necessary to consolidate his improvement in mental state and rehabilitation. Dr Yip also recommends a hospital order for an unspecified period at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.
Today, counsel also confirmed in this court that the defendant understands the two psychiatric reports and also, in order to reflect his insights, he now also has no opposition to the making of a hospital order.
This was an unprovoked, brutal, and fatal attack on a defenceless old man which led to his tragic death. The defendant is clearly a violent person, as one can see from his criminal record and the opinion of the psychiatrists. No doubt he is still a very seriously dangerous person of high violence risk.
In sentencing, I bear in mind the consequence of his crime and also the need to protect the public. The fact is that he remains a danger to the society. I am satisfied that the proper way to deal with the defendant is to enable him to receive proper treatment in a mental hospital until it is safe for him to return to the society.
In light of the psychiatrists’ recommendations, I make a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, for the defendant to be detained in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for an unspecified period.