HKSAR v. LIU KA KI

HCCC 37/2025

[2026] HKCFI 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 37 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant was originally charged with murder. She pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on the basis of the defence provided for in sections 3(1)  and (2)  of the Homicide Ordinance, Cap 339, namely the defence of “diminished responsibility”. This plea was accepted by the prosecution in satisfaction of the indictment. The defendant has admitted the Summary of Facts read out in court.

2.  Accordingly, the defendant is convicted of manslaughter on her own plea and admission of the Summary of Facts. 

3.  The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows. Mr Lo Wun-hei (“the Husband”)  and the defendant, respectively born in 1995 and 1998, came to know each other in 2019 and got married in July 2020.  The defendant gave birth to Miss Lo Yuet-ning (“the Girl”)  on 15 September 2020.  

4.  After the marriage, the couple and the Girl had been residing at the family home of the Husband in Tseung Kwan O.  Also residing at that residence were the Husband’s parents, namely Mr Lo Chin-hui (“Mr Lo”)  and Madam Wong Wang-lai (“Madam Wong”).  

5.  The relationship amongst the defendant, the Husband, Mr Lo and Madam Wong was by and large harmonious.  

6.  In March 2022, the defendant and the Girl moved into a subdivided unit at the Majestic Apartments, No. 301 Kings Road, North Point (“the Flat”)  which was rented in the Husband’s name.  The Husband did not move into the Flat, but visited the defendant and the Girl at the Flat from time to time.  

7.  It was originally agreed that Mr Lo would pick up the Girl at the Flat on 22 April 2022 and take her to the family home for a temporary stay.  However, the defendant was unreachable on both 22 and 23 April 2022. 

8.  Worried, Mr Lo and Madam Wong went to the Flat to look for the defendant and the Girl at around 9 pm on 23 April 2022.  Despite knocking on the door for some 20 minutes, no one answered.  An attempt was made to contact the landlord with a view to opening the door, but was in vain. 

9.  When Mr Lo tried to look through the gap at the bottom of the door, he saw a bundle of keys.  When Mr Lo was trying to reach those keys, the bundle of keys was suddenly thrown out from inside the Flat by the defendant. 

10.  Mr Lo and Madam Wong immediately opened the door of the Flat.  Upon entering the room, they found the defendant lying supine on the floor.  The defendant was unable to speak and appeared to be less than fully conscious. 

11.  Mr Lo found the Girl on the bed.  She had no breath or pulse.  There was rigidity in her limbs and her lips had turned purple.  

12.  A report to the police was immediately made.  Meanwhile, Mr Lo performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the defendant, but she gave no response.  

13.  A team of police officers and ambulancemen soon attended the Flat at around 9.30 pm and cordoned off the scene.  

14.  The ambulancemen examined the defendant and the Girl respectively.  While no sign of life was noted of the Girl, the defendant was able to respond to stimulation.  There was a red mark on the defendant’s left neck.  A few broken cable ties were found on the floor and bed. 

15.  The defendant was conveyed to the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital for medical treatment at around 9.57 pm. 

16.  At 00.43 am on 24 April 2022, the attending doctor informed the police that the defendant was unfit for police interview.  

17.  Later at around 1.13 am, the defendant was formally arrested.  Under caution, she made no response.  

18.  In the defendant’s iPhone, two documents were found in the “Note” app.  The first “Note”, dated 20 April 2022 stated that the defendant was depressed and did not know how to go on.  The second “Note”, dated 22 April 2022 stated that the defendant had done something wrong and was very miserable.  She had decided “to leave with the daughter” and asked that no autopsy be performed on her or her daughter.  

19.  Dr Lam Wai-kwok (“Dr Lam”), forensic pathologist, attended the Flat at around 1.45 am on 24 April 2022 for preliminary examination.  Dr Lam estimated the Girl’s time of death to be about a day or so prior to the preliminary examination at 2.22 am on 24 April 2022, ie, on or around 23 April 2022.  

20.  A search was conducted inside the Flat.  The police seized, inter alia, the following: 

(1)  in the pantry sink, three brown pills;

(2)  on one table next to the wardrobe, one bottle of brown pills and one wine bottle containing a liquid;

(3)  two suicide notes respectively written on the back of a Bank of East Asia account statement and on both sides of a HSBC account statement. The first note was dated “13/03/22” and stated that the defendant had decided to die and to bring her daughter along with her. The second note was undated and stated that the defendant had decided to bring the daughter with her. Specifically, the note stated that she would decline any autopsy to be performed on her or her daughter. It was further asserted that they had both died from poisoning and asphyxiation, and that a blood test would reveal Naphazoline.

21.  Forensic examination of various exhibits seized from the Flat revealed, inter alia, that: 

(1)  the three brown pills found in the pantry sink contained Chlorpheniramine, Naphazoline, and Paracetamol. It is, however, noted that the bottle of similar brown pills found on one table next to the wardrobe did not contain those chemicals;

(2)  one wine bottle on the table next to the wardrobe contained a liquid containing Chlorpheniramine and Naphazoline.

22.  Dr Lam conducted an autopsy on the Girl on 26 April 2022, after the body was identified by the Husband.  The cause of the Girl’s death was expressed by Dr Lam as “adverse effects of Naphazoline and Chlorpheniramine” and “consistent with pressure around mouth and neck”. 

23.  Prior to this offence, the defendant was not previously known to the psychiatric services.  Following the defendant’s remand in April 2022, two psychiatric reports were obtained pursuant to the court’s order.  Dr Shek Kei-fung and Dr Dorothy Tang, both visiting psychiatrists of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, opined that the defendant might be suffering from an adjustment disorder or major depressive episode, with psychological stressors, including financial pressure and disturbance by loan sharks and debts.  In-patient psychiatric treatment was recommended.  

24.  Both psychiatrists were of the opinion that at the time of the killing, the defendant suffered from adjustment disorder, with depressed mood, in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th edition (DSM-5).  There were then reactive low mood, poor sleep, poor appetite, hopelessness and suicide ideation.  The defendant was also impressed to have personality difficulties.  At the material time, she was suffering from an abnormality of mind, arising from adjustment disorder, which had likely substantially impaired her ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control. 

25.  The defendant now accepts and admits that she had, on or about 23 April 2022, in Hong Kong, unlawfully killed the Girl by poisoning her with Naphazoline and Chlorpheniramine and asphyxiation inside the Flat.  She pleads guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility in satisfaction of the indictment for murder.  

26.  As to the personal background of the defendant, the defendant was, prior to this offence, a person of clear record.  The defendant was born in mainland China in 1998.  The defendant started attending Primary 2 schooling in 2010.  The parents of the defendant divorced shortly after the defendant settled in Hong Kong. 

27.  The defendant was educated up to Secondary Form 6 level.  After finishing school, she was qualified and employed by an insurance company until she got married and became a full-time housewife.  On 6 July 2020, the defendant, who was already pregnant at that time, registered her marriage with the Husband. 

28.  On 15 September 2020, the defendant gave birth to the Girl.  This coincided with the COVID-19 epidemic, which resulted in the Husband losing his employment and the family’s only source of income, as he was the sole breadwinner.  The defendant managed to find the Husband part-time work as a cleaner, but the income was still insufficient for the family needs.  The Husband spent his spare time playing video games at home and ignored the Girl.  The Husband eventually found work as a kitchen chef or cook.  

29.  Stressors that may have caused the defendant to act in the way she did was said to be a history of debts owed by the Husband (and/or by her).  He initially did not disclose the full extent of his debts prior to the marriage, and after he disclosed the actual figures, the defendant had to take out loans in her name to cover those debts.  

30.  The defendant was home alone when the debt collectors/loan sharks came to regularly harass her in the afternoons.  The defendant changed her mobile phone numbers several times, but was still being hounded by those debt collectors.  Reports and complaints were made by the defendant to Tseung Kwan O Police Station when the Flat was covered with red paint.  The defendant moved out to the subdivided unit in March 2022.  This was her coping mechanism. 

31.  It was during this period of time, around April 2022, that the defendant had settled thoughts of suicide as the last resort.  The history of the matters outlined above has been repeated in her suicide notes, written out by the deceased at the time of the homicide, and mentioned in the admitted Summary of Facts. 

32.  At paragraph 22 of HKSAR v Chiu Wai Kan Vicken (No.2) [2011] 5 HKLRD 422, Stock VP cited from Leonard J in R v Chambers (1983)  5 Cr App R(S)  190 at page 193 of the judgment, accepted that the sentencing options for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility ranged from life imprisonment, determinate sentence of imprisonment, hospital order, and probation: 

“In diminished responsibility cases there are various courses open to a judge. His choice of the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and material before him. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probabilities, be one of life imprisonment.

In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused’s responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom, possibly with some supervision.

There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in which the accused’s degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public.”

33.  In the present case, according to the reports of the two psychiatrists, a hospital order is indeed recommended and justified.  

34.  According to the report of Dr Samuel Tsang, dated 11 September 2025, at paragraphs 11 and 12, the defendant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood (F43.21)  at the time of the index offence.  These symptoms resulted in marked distress and significant impairment in her social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.  It is in Dr Tsang’s opinion that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind, namely, adjustment disorder, which likely substantially impaired her ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control at the time of the index offence, during which she attempted suicide with her daughter. 

35.  Dr Tsang went on to opine that while the defendant has shown some improvement in her interpersonal skills and relationship with her father during remand, she continues to exhibit a tendency to externalise blame and displays overconfidence in her coping abilities.  To consolidate her progress, facilitate successful reintegration into society, and reduce future risk of relapse, further intensive rehabilitation and psychological intervention are deemed necessary.  Dr Tsang recommended a hospital order of 9 to 12 months, pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136, to be served in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. 

36.  Similar recommendations were made in the report of Dr Dorothy Tang, dated 4 September 2025, at paragraph 16.  Dr Tang stated that despite the defendant’s stable mental condition in recent years, ongoing rehabilitation is important to prevent any relapse in the future.  Rehabilitation involving multidisciplinary input with psychological therapy, vocational training, and family work is vital to reduce the risk of relapse for the defendant and to minimise the risk of self-harm and violence in the future. 

A period of in-patient rehabilitation treatment in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for the defendant is deemed beneficial. Dr Tang recommended a hospital order of 9 to 12 months, pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136.

37.  In all the circumstances of the present case, I am prepared to accept the recommendations of the two psychiatrists that the best way to deal with this unfortunate case is to sentence the defendant to a hospital order.

38.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a hospital order for a period of 12 months, pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136.  Such sentence is to be served at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.