HKSAR v. CHIU CHI TAK JOHN

DCCC36/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 36 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, I convicted you of a charge of an offence of throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212, after trial.

2.  In very brief terms, I found that you threw corrosive fluid, being sulphuric acid, from a bottle onto your neighbour, Mr Chow, after a very brief exchange shortly after midnight on 28 September 2010.

3.  The full facts of the case are in my verdict.  I will very briefly in my sentence set out what I had found.

4.  Shortly after midnight on 28 September 2010, Mr Chow, the victim in this case, returned home from a night out.  When he reached his home, he opened his gate and the dog that lived upstairs started barking.  He attempted to tell the dog to stop barking by speaking up towards the dog.  Shortly thereafter he heard another dog barking coming from within your house, which was next door or opposite to his.

5.  A very short while later he saw you walking out from your home to your front patio.  He then saw you looking around. He saw that you saw him standing there telling the dog that lived upstairs to quieten down.

6.  You then walked over from your front patio to a side corridor of your home which was almost opposite or closer to where Mr Chow was by his gate.  You then climbed up on to a concrete base and looked over the glass barrier.  Mr Chow said to you, “Hey, Mr Chiu, it seems to me it doesn’t concern you.  I am just playing with the dog.”  You then started to shout at Mr Chow very loudly, but Mr. Chow couldn’t remember the content of those words you used.  Mr Chow asked you to come out to talk if you wanted to as he wanted to keep the noise down or low so that you both would not have to raise your voice when talking to each other. 

7.  However, defendant you then walked away from where you were, disappeared for a few seconds and returned carrying a bottle.  On this bottle, which was about 6 inches in height, there were some red words and markings.  You again climbed on to the concrete platform along the glass barrier which was closer to the gate where Mr Chow was at the time and Mr Chow shouted at you, “Don’t splash me.  If you do, I’ll report you to the police station.”  No sooner had Mr Chow warned you, you then threw the acid in the bottle at him.  At the same time you said, “Go on, report it, stupid bastard.”

8.  Fortunately, when Mr Chow saw you raising your hand, he moved away quickly and retreated backwards into his patio nevertheless still some liquid splashed onto him.  It splashed onto his chest, his shorts and his leg.  Immediately thereafter Mr Chow felt pain like he was being burnt.  He looked down at his T-shirt and shorts and saw many holes in it which were black in colour as if they had just been burnt.  He immediately made a report to the police.

9.  The police arrived.  He was taken to the hospital and later that evening the police went back to the premises and took swabs from the fluid at your house as well as Mr Chow’s house and later seized the clothes that Mr Chow was wearing.

10.  A forensic scientist who then examined the cotton swabs and clothes seized from Mr Chow found that sulphuric acid was found on them.  The burn holes on the clothing were caused by sulphuric acid.

11.  After medical examination on Mr Chow shortly thereafter it was found that Mr Chow’s left chest wall and a 1 centimetre by 1.5 centimetre area on his right shin had received second degree chemical burns.

12.  Mr Philip Wong, your counsel, has made very full and thorough mitigation on your behalf today.  You are aged 60 and are of clear record.  You are a university degree holder and a well-educated man.  You are married with three children, and at the time of the offence you were semi-retired.

13.  Prior to sentencing you I called for a psychological report, which I have now received. Your counsel, Mr Wong, tells me that has been read and explained to you and you accept the contents.

14.  I had called for this report as is I found it quite extraordinary that a man who has been out of trouble for 60 years, all your life, would suddenly react in the manner you did.  The conclusion from the clinical psychologist assessed you to be a person with normal cognitive functioning who has mild adjustment problems in your role change from breadwinner to homemaker at the time of the offence.  It was inconclusive that the present offence was related to any pathological psychosocial factors.  Your risk of re-offending was estimated to be low.  However, given your current psychological make-up, i.e., your low self-esteem and depressive mood, it was recommended that you might benefit from psychological treatment for your depression.  I am informed by Mr Wong that you will continue to receive medication for your depression and hope that you can improve and this will cure your illness.

15.  Mr Wong has stated in mitigation that this was not a pre-meditated act, it was an act committed in the heat of the moment.  In terms of throwing corrosive acid, it is not the most serious of its kind.  He, however, rightly accepts that the courts in Hong Kong must reflect a deterrent sentence for this offence.  He has also brought to the attention of the court that no substantial injury had been caused but he understands that it is not an important factor to be considered in giving you a more lenient sentence.

16.  I have received three letters today from your family, those are from your wife and your three children, your son and a friend, a professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.  In short, as a result of this offence much disruption has been caused to your family.  Since the time of this offence you have had to live separately from them because of the bail conditions imposed upon you.  Your wife has suffered many sleepless nights as a result.  You are spoken about by your family and the professor as a very responsible, family loving, educated friend, father and husband.  You are a devoted family man, kind in nature, and they have begged me for your mercy.

17.  I also recognise the fact that you do have some heart condition to which you are due to have an operation to assist you in your heart disease.

18.  Defendant, you are still denying that you committed this offence.  That is also reflected in the psychological report. 

19.  The offence of throwing corrosive fluid is a very serious offence indeed, the maximum sentence being one of life imprisonment.  Deterrence is very much an element in sentencing.  The approach to sentences for throwing corrosive acid fluids in the courts have ranged from 5 to 14 years.  That is a very wide range of sentences.  Shorter sentences have occasionally been substituted in cases of extreme provocation or where no substantial injury has been caused.  The passage in Hong Kong Archbold 2011 at Chapter 20-255 reflects the summary views of this.

20.  On the evening in question there does not appear to be any particular argument or quarrel amongst you and the victim.  Mr Chow had said something to you which you obviously did not like.  You scolded him and came back with the corrosive fluid.  Without any warning you threw it at him.  It was by sheer luck, good fortune and foreseeability that Mr Chow moved away, otherwise he may have sustained very much more serious injuries.  You were only some 6 metres away.  This type of behaviour is wholly intolerable and unacceptable. 

21.  It is clear that in Hong Kong residents or people have to live close to each other.  Tolerance to our neighbours is of utmost importance.  Admittedly, sometimes neighbours are put to test. 

22.  In the present case, it appears that the neighbour’s dog was barking which started your dog barking, and shortly after, this incident happened.  I suspect that the barking would not have been more than 5 minutes at the most.

23.  In a recent Magistracy Appeal it was held that barking for about half an hour is something which would cause a nuisance.  This is far below that time.  But even if barking does cause a nuisance, one does not take the law into one’s own hands and do acts such as those serious acts which you did that night.

24.  I must say I found it very, very strange that at your age with your education and your background that you should resort to such intolerable and violent behaviour.

25.  It is unfortunate that this act of throwing corrosive acid is one which is becoming a phenomenon in Hong Kong, and particularly worrying in public areas.  It is perhaps not so common that the cases coming to court are those between neighbours but more so occurring between feuding couples or people in relationships.  In this case it was one where you had thrown corrosive liquid on your neighbour.

26.  Defendant, I have taken into account that you are 60 years of age, have a clear record and obviously have been a good, law-abiding citizen up to September 2010.

27.  Taking all the factors into account said in mitigation and the circumstances of this case and the injuries caused to Mr.Chow, I consider a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate.  In the circumstances you sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.