HKSAR v. NG KIM HUNG

HCCC 226/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 226 OF 2015

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty on the amended indictment to the 2nd count as an alternative to the 1st count, a charge of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, and the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, where he admits to unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Lau Hon-sing with intent to grievous bodily harm him.

As for the 3rd count on the amended indictment, the count of murder, the defendant has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and that plea has been accepted in satisfaction of the 3rd count properly in view of the psychiatricreports on the basis that he was acting under diminished responsibility.

On the 4th count, the defendant has pleaded guilty to wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

The facts that has been admitted shows that the defendant was living in a housing estate in Sau Mau Ping by himself. One of the victims, Mr Lau, lived next-door to him, and at the time of the offence he had his common law wife, Madam Lo (the victim of Count 3) and their two daughters living with him. The two daughters were aged 10 and aged 5. The younger daughter, who is aged 5, is the victim of Count 4.

On that morning of the offence, the victims had locked up their flat and was intending to go about their ordinary business. Mr Lau was going to work and the young girls were going to school. Totally unprovoked, the defendant walked up to Mr Lau an splashed fluid onto his head and attempted to light it with a lighter. Fortunately, that was unsuccessful and the defendant then started hitting Mr Lau with his hands. Mr Lau fended off the attack and ran towards the staircase being chased by the defendant.

The defendant chased Mr Lau from the 13th floor to the 9th floor, whereupon he stopped and went back upstairs. Mr Lau continued to run and shouted for help.

Eventually, Mr Lau went downstairs and was told that the police had already been notified. The defendant, meanwhile, ran back up to the 13th floor and chased the victims into the lift and the defendant took out a knife and stabbed Madam Lo repeatedly.

The younger daughter, the 5-year-old daughter, was hiding behind her mother, while the older daughter, who was aged 10, then took the opportunity to flee. In the course of the attack, the deceased managed to come out from the elevator, but the defendant followed her and continued to assault her, and in the course of the attack the defendant also injured the face of the 5-year-old girl.

The deceased lay on the ground bleeding and the 5-year-old daughter was crying beside her mother when, eventually, a neighbour on the 13th floor, alerted by the noise, came out and took the young girl back to her flat to comfort her.

The elder daughter managed, subsequently, to reunite with her father on the ground floor. The defendant, meanwhile, returned to his flat and started to burn things. Eventually, police arrived and the Fire Services arrived and the deceased was subsequently certified dead at the United Christian Hospital. The young 5-year-old girl was treated for the wound on her face.

The defendant was arrested from his flat where he admitted to the police that he had deliberately stabbed and killed the deceased. He claimed that the reason was that she was making noises every night causing him to be unable to sleep.

In a subsequent interview and from it one could also have an idea of the defendant’s mental state because he explained what happened that morning, and after the attack on the deceased and her family he claimed he was feeling happier and he returned home, and he expressed the hope that the police would take him to the Castle Peak Hospital.

An autopsy was subsequently performed on the deceased, and the conclusion was that she had died from stab wounds to her neck with injury to the left common carotid artery leading to massive blood loss.

Forensic analysis was made of the liquid splashed on Mr Lau. It was a flammable organic solvent and commonly found in household products such as rubbing alcohol. The lighter that was used by the defendant was functional, and it was therefore fortunate that it did not work at the time when the defendant tried to light it on Mr Lau.

As has been revealed, the defendant has been examined by a psychiatrist, Dr Yu, who was tasked by the defence to prepare a report on the defendant, and his conclusion was that the defendant was suffering from a disease of the mind which is delusional disorder at the time of the offence which affected his ability to form a rational judgment as to what is right and wrong, and to exercise willpower to control his acts.

Subsequently, two government psychiatrists agreed with Dr Yu’s opinion. Dr Amy Liu, a visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre was of the opinion also that the defendant was suffering from delusional disorder and had a longstanding persecutory and referential delusion against his neighbours, security guards and the housing authority and, therefore, at the time of the killing the delusional disorder substantially impaired his responsibility.

Dr Dorothy Tang, also a visiting psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, also was of the opinion that the defendant was suffering from delusional disorder dependence syndrome, and that the defendant’s judgment and exercise of self-control had been substantially impaired at the time of the offence.

Both governmentdoctors recommended that for the psychiatric management of the defendant for his own protection, and for the safety of the members of the public, a hospital order for an unspecified period is highly recommended. Dr Tang has also said in her report that the sentence can be served in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where provision has been made for him.

This is a very sad and heartrending tragedy for which no sentence that can be imposed on the defendant can hope to make right this tragedy. The victims in this case innocently became the tragic heroes in this sorry saga. The defendant hopefully can, from now on, be kept in safe place where this sort of tragedy can never be repeated again.

I only hope that, in time, the horrific scenes that the daughters of the deceased witnessed will grow fainter and they will be able to carry on with the help of their family, friends and, perhaps, also psychological counselling. These two little girls have acted very bravely, in the circumstances, and ought to be proud of themselves.

The court feels helpless in the circumstances because, as I said, nothing can ever make things right again. The only thing this court can do is to make sure that the defendant receive the necessary psychiatric help for his own good, and that the public is forever protected from an attack of this nature.

In fact, Dr Tang made an observation in her report that the defendant had suffered from a persistent delusion, and “high violent risk” therefore she recommended psychiatric management for his protection and for the protection of others.

So there is an underlying tendency to violence, which I note.

So the defendant is sentenced to an indefinite term in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. So I order the hospital order on all counts.