HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN KEUNG

DCCC1158/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1158 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of throwing corrosive fluid, namely hydrochloric acid, with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

Facts of the case

2.  The defendant and the victim were both neighbours in a public housing estate; one lived in Room 3302, the other lived in Room 3301.  On the day in question at about 9 am, the victim left home to work and was waiting for the lift at the lift lobby.  The defendant came after him and poured the acid onto his face, chest and arms. 

3.  A neighbour on the floor below helped the victim to rinse with water.  At the meantime, the defendant locked himself inside flat 3301 and tried to commit suicide.  When the police broke open the door, only to find the defendant lay on the bed with blood.  He cut himself on his neck and left wrist. 

4.  Inside his toilet, a bottle of toilet drainage cleanser was found but was nearly empty.  The Government forensic scientist confirmed that it contained hydrochloric acid having a concentration of 33% weight by weight.  It was corrosive and capable of causing severe skin burn and permanent damage to eyes.

5.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that out of momentary anger he had splashed the victim with oxidizing acid.  The defendant accused the victim had somehow caused him skin allergy. 

6.  At the time of plea, the defendant was still detained in Siu Lam.  I called two further medical reports on his mental condition and also a background report.  Today, I have the benefit of all these reports before me. 

7.  The defendant is 73, lives alone in flat 3301. He has a clear record.  He married in China in 1963.  His wife died 5 years ago.  He had no contact with his children.  He is basically a loner.  He suffered from delusion disorder since 2009.  He believed that the Housing Authority had contaminated his water deliberately.  He was referred to Eastern Kowloon Psychiatric Centre for treatment, but he defaulted follow-up treatment shortly afterwards. 

8.  He then switched his target of delusion in recent years to the victim of the present case for poisoning the air in his flat and causing him skin problem.  He was again admitted into Kwai Chung Hospital for 4 months for treatment, but again defaulted treatment after discharging from hospital.

9.  Dr Choi in his assessment report dated 12 December 2011 considered a compulsive in-patient treatment is required.  He recommended 4 to 6 months Hospital Order. 

10.  Mr Woo, the Clinical Psychologist, considered that the defendant remained as a serious threat to the victim’s safety and suggested house relocation for the defendant.  Mr Woo found the defendant has very limited motivation to change. 

11.  The defence counsel asked for a Hospital Order as an option for sentence.  However, to impose a Hospital Order required two doctors’ recommendations.  Mr Woo has not recommended any in-patient treatment for the defendant. 

12.  There is no doubt that the defendant faces a very serious charge.  The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.              

13.  In HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan CACC166/2001, the Court of Appeal had considered a large number of cases concerning throwing corrosive fluid with intent.  The starting point for this type of offence ranged from a few years to 18 years.

14.  In the present case, the hydrochloric acid’s concentration was 33 per cent.  However, it was still strong enough to cause severe skin burn and permanent damage of eyesight.  The defendant had the delusion, that the victim had poisoned the air and caused him skin problem.

15.  Under this delusion, the defendant then splashed the corrosive acid to the victim.  This is a determined and intentional attack on the victim.  When he splashed the acid onto the face of the victim, the defendant intended that the victim suffered serious injury.  The face of a human being is an exposed area without clothing or any kind of protective devices.  Eyesight could be seriously damaged or permanently damaged by the defendant’s act. 

16.  The defendant’s behaviour was to cause serious injury to the victim.  The defendant should have foreseen that there was a possibility that the victim might lose his eyesight and disfigurement.

17.  The medical report said that the victim suffered from “chemical injury on both eyes, corneal abrasion over right eye, redness over facial area, both forearms, chest wall due to superficial burn by chemical fluid.”

18.  The victim was discharged on the same day.  Follow up treatment revealed there were patches of scar on his arms and his forehead. The victim’s “left nipple had fallen off when healing skin became hardened.”  Today, his eyesight is now completely recovered. 

19.  The defendant, having done what he should not have done, he returned to his flat, cut his neck and wrist, lay on his bed with the blood running from his wounds.  His whole pillow and part of the beddings were soaked with blood.  The scene was daunting.  He was hospitalised for 5 days.  He knew too well that he should not splash the acid onto the face of the victim.

20.  As the specialist report said that the defendant still impose danger to himself and to the victim as he had no insight into his mental illness. 

21.  Also, the background report pointed out that the defendant wanted to die together with the victim.  A long period of detention is necessary as a form of punishment, deterrence and treatment.  When the defendant serves his prison term, he can also receive the medical treatment. 

22.  Although the defendant is now 73, clear record, he had committed a very serious crime.  His age does not warrant any deduction in term of sentence. 

23.  It is true that for offences of this serious nature, the injuries suffered by the victim are of little relevance to sentence, and that can be seen from the case of Chan Chi Lung [1989] 1 HKC 70 and Ngai Kwong Hing CA 514/92 at page 72 and page 6 respectively.  This is especially so in view of the provisions of section 29 of the Ordinance which provides:

“Any person who unlawfully and maliciously.

(c) ... throws corrosive fluid with intent in any or such cases to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable any person or to do some grievance bodily harm to any person, shall, whether any bodily injury is effected or not, be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life.”

24.  To this end, having considered all the factors before me, I consider that a starting point of 3 years is appropriate and reduce the sentence to 2 years because of the defendant’s guilty plea.  He is so sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.