HKSAR v. PETER SHU

 DCCC147/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 147 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2.  You admitted that on 10 October 2009 at the corridor outside Flat A2, 7th Floor, North Point Centre, No.278 King’s Road, North Point, you unlawfully and maliciously threw upon Chan Hoi-wing in the 1st charge and Lam Bing-koon in the 2nd charge a corrosive fluid, which was sulphuric acid, with intent to burn both Chan and Lam.

3.  The facts are as follows. At about 10 am on 10 October the two victims Chan and Lam were working on the canopy as renovation workers adjoining an outer wall of your flat which is the subject flat in the charge, that is Flat A2 of the 7th Floor. While they were working on the canopy, they heard you yelling out from the flat accusing them of infringing your right to privacy. However, they just ignored you and continued their work. You then threw some fluid at them through a window of the flat, but that failed to splash on them.

4.  The workers believed the fluid was a detergent as it produced bubbles when it landed on the canopy. They again ignored you and continued with their work. Following that, Lam heard you saying, “If you don’t go away, corrosive acid would be splashed on you.”

5.  At about 10.30 am you appeared at the window in the corridor which was facing the canopy. The workers were standing side by side about 3 feet away from that window. They saw you holding a bottle of drainage solvent. You then threw the fluid inside that bottle at them.

6.  Immediately after that, the victims felt burning pains on their arms. At the same time a number of spots and holes were produced on Mr Chan’s pants. They rinsed the affected bodily areas with water immediately. A report was made to the police. An officer arrived at the scene and located yourself and the two victims.

7.  Upon enquiry, you led the officer to the kitchen of your flat, pointing at a plastic bottle, which contained fluid, marked with the words “Flying Fish Brand strong power drainage solvent”. You told the officer that that was the fluid used by you earlier on.

8.  You were arrested and cautioned in connection with this offence. And under caution you said, “I did not mean to hurt them. I just wanted to hamper their maintenance work on the illegal structure.”

9.  In a video recorded interview on the following day you admitted throwing the fluid onto the canopy where the victims were working. You said that your act was to scare the victims thinking they might pay heed to your protest and stop working on the canopy. You wanted to damage the work they had carried out on the canopy. You had first thrown water drawn from the water closet and splashed the water out of the kitchen window on the outer wall.

10.  On seeing the victims paying no heed to you, you then picked up the acid from the floor of your kitchen, went out of the flat into the corridor and through the window splashed the drainage solvent onto the canopy. That drainage solvent was bought by you several weeks ago for domestic use.

11.  The liquid contained 93 per cent of sulphuric acid. It was highly corrosive, capable of causing severe burns to the skin and permanent damage to the eyes.

12.  The forensic scientist confirmed that traces of sulphuric acid were found on the pants of Mr Chan and that the damage was caused by the sulphuric acid.

13.  On the day of the incident at about 11.20 am the victims were medically examined at an hospital. By that time the pains on them had subsided and no particular injury was found on them.

14.  Mr Nicholas Lau, counsel, has made very full and thorough mitigation on your behalf. You are aged 47 and of clear record.

15.  Prior to sentencing you, I called for a probation report, a community service order report and two psychiatric reports.

16.  Mr Lau has told me that those reports have been read and explained to you and you agreed to the contents of those reports.

17.  At the last hearing Mr Lau submitted a medical report provided by your own private doctor, Dr W H Ho, stating that the diagnosis for you was bipolar affective disorder. I had also been informed that your mother, sister and brother suffered from schizophrenia. For that reason, I was concerned about your mental status and therefore I sought the opinion of two doctors in their psychiatric reports.

18.  From the conclusion of those two doctors, they are both of the opinion that you suffer from a diagnosis known as emotional unstable personality disorder impulsive type. They disagree with the diagnosis of your own private doctor Ho. They do not consider you to be suffering from bipolar affective disorder.

19.  The probation officer says that you are suitable for probation and recommends 12 months’ probation. However, in view of your social unacceptable conduct, a community service order is not or less suitable for you at this stage.

20.  Mr Lau’s mitigation on your behalf as to why you committed this offence on that day is as follows. Briefly, the canopy which the workers were working on was an illegal structure from the flat below you. You had for some time been having quarrels with your neighbours below as a result of this structure. On the day in question the two victims appeared on the canopy which was immediately outside your kitchen window and this frightened your mother.

21.  Your mother, as you told Dr Ho in the report, at paragraph 9, became upset and scared. You said you asked the workers what they were doing and they explained that they were employed by the people living downstairs to fix the canopy. You asked them to leave as you were not informed about this and you felt your privacy was violated. They, however, refused to listen and continued to work. You then took a bowl of water and splashed it in front of them to scare them away. They continued to work, therefore, you took the bottle of drainage solvent.

22.  Mr Lau submits on your behalf that when you threw the solvent at them, which was about 3 feet away, you had intended the acid to be thrown between them when they were standing side by side. In Mr Lau’s mitigation on your behalf, he submits that the acid was not thrown by you at their face or intentionally at their body. However, of course they were splashed with the acid. The injuries that they suffered were however not serious and in fact, Mr Lau submits, they did not suffer any particular injury when examined at the hospital.

23.  Mr Lau submits to this court today that I should accept that you were provoked by the presence of the victims on the canopy and for that reason, coupled with the fact that you had had quarrels with your neighbours downstairs and that your mother had been frightened and upset by the presence of those workers, and you felt that there was an intrusion of privacy, that I should deal with you leniently, such that I should consider a sentence which will afford your immediate release from prison to which you have already served some 22 days.

24.  You are of clear record. You are educated up to Form 5. You are single and living with your mother, sister and brother whom I have said all suffer from mental illness. You are not suffering from any mental illness although the doctors have said that the risk that you could become schizophrenic is very high.

25.  Between 1985 to 1996 you had worked for one company, then changed jobs in 96 and quit work in 2003 owing to work pressure and your asthma. Since then you have been unemployed but make a living by investment in the stock market and savings. It appears that your father who has passed away had left the family with sufficient savings, stocks and shares to make a living.

26.  Despite holding down one long term job you have since then been unable to hold down a job because of your short temper, poor relationship with colleagues and loud voice as stated in paragraph 7 of Dr Yuen’s report. You are an impatient person and could easily lose control and run into conflict with others.

27.  In this case I think it clearly evidences the fact that you clearly lose control of yourself although there is no evidence of your turning violent. You are however quick to resort, as identified in this case, to very impulsive and, in my view, abnormal means to resolve issues. I do not accept in this case that you were necessarily provoked to the extent that this provided you good reason for you to throw corrosive acid on anybody.

28.  I do not accept also that it was an intrusion of your privacy. This canopy or parapet although outside your flat was not part of your flat. It did not appear that their work was in any way affecting you or your flat. These workers were there innocently employed by your neighbours to carry out a job. There was no history of incompatibility with these particular workers. The only connection they had was that they were employed by your neighbours whom you had quarrelled with.

29.  The manner to which you had adopted to prevent the workers from working was highly abnormal and dangerous. I believe you yourself recognized that because very shortly after you had committed this offence, you immediately sought assistance from a private psychiatrist knowing, I believe, you had done something seriously wrong.

30.  This offence is a very serious offence. The maximum sentence is of course one of life imprisonment. The effect of throwing corrosive acid at people is severe. It can cause permanent and serious injury. As stated by the forensic scientist, it is capable of causing severe burns to the skin and permanent damage to the eyes.

31.  I cannot bring myself to accede to Mr Lau’s mitigation that for throwing corrosive acid intentionally at people with intent to burn them warrants anything other than an immediate custodial sentence. I accept in this case, however, you did not throw it at their face or necessarily towards any one of them directly. But it was perhaps by sheer luck and it was fortunate that these victims were able to avoid serious injury from the acid. What is seen is that the trousers of one of the victims was damaged and the victims’ arms felt a burning pain. Fortunately, for them, they immediately rinsed themselves off with water.

32.  Defendant, to stop anyone from carrying out legitimate work by hurling acid at them is behaviour which must be deterred. The court cannot tolerate any sort of throwing of corrosive acid at anyone. I of course take into account that a very small amount of liquid was splashed, that the aim was not necessarily direct at them or their face and that the injuries were minor, if not, anything in particular at all.

33.  I consider that for this offence to which you have committed on these facts, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate had I convicted you after trial. However, I take into account your very early plea of guilty, your co-operation with the police and the fact that you are truly remorseful and in those circumstances I reduce that term to one of 4 months’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced on both charges and to run concurrent to each other.