HKSAR v. CHEUNG HUNG MAI

HCCC 131/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 131 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: This is a tragic case. The defendant, after quarrel with his wife over financial matters, tried to kill himself and his 3-months-old son by gas whilst the wife had gone out to calm herself down. About two and a half hours later, the wife went home and noticed strong smell of gas. The fire service was called and after they broke into the flat, the defendant and his son were found unconscious on the floor. Both regained consciousness after a short while. A gas hose near the stove was found to be loosened and there was a plier next to it.

The son, on admission to hospital, was observed to be stable in all his vital signs and the update medical report does not show any resulting injury or disability.

The defendant is no stranger to the Mental Health Service. In 2010, he was first known for adjustment disorder and cough mixture abuse. In fact, he had abused cough mixture up to and on the day of the offence.

The defendant told the psychiatrist that his action probably arose from the fact that he was momentarily and suddenly overwhelmed with negative emotions when the wife left him and his son in the flat.

Although one might, for one moment, wonder whether he was using the son as a tool to emotionally manipulate the wife not to leave him, the fact that he was prepared to die together with his son lends support to his claim that he, who came from a broken family, could not bear to see his son grow up in a single parent family like himself.

But even so, courts do not condone the taking of human lives and it is the court’s duty to protect the vulnerable. I have time and again reiterated in previous cases that no parent has the right to decide whether their children should live or die. This message is loud and clear. Those who take or attempt to take the lives of their children have to be punished. The sentence has to reflect public abhorrence.

In the present case, it was only sheer luck that the wife came back in time and no permanent disability was caused to either the son or himself.

Psychiatric reports shown that the defendant has no signs of depression and mental disturbance. The background report shows good family support and the wife is prepared to forgive him and indeed looks forward to a family reunion.

The clinical psychologist is of the view that the present offence is related to the defendant’s poor management of distress and frustration triggered by marital disharmony, worsened by his cough mixture abuse. His risk of committing impulsive behaviours, including violent acts and suicidal ideations, in times of heavy stress is assessed to be moderate.

However, no matter what state of mind the defendant was in at the time, he did intend to kill his son. This is to be distinguished from the case of Wong Po Chu where the sole intention of the defendant there was to commit suicide but unbeknown to herself, she had exposed her 9-year-old son to danger. Therefore, whilst this court sympathises with the predicament of the defendant, the degree of his criminal responsibility in the present case is not to be taken lightly.

Your son is now 1 year old. Your impulsive act has and will cost you quality time with your son during his formative years. However, I am sure that it will never be too late to make amends and to pick up your bond with him after you serve your time in prison, and by then, you should have cleared yourself of your vice habit of substance abuse.

I judge that a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate case.

On your plea, you are given the full one-third discount and you will go to prison for 4 years. That is the sentence that I pass.