HKSAR v. Wong Man Chun

HCCC 56/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 56 OF 2016

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to Section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

The defendant and victim were married in the mainland in 1987. There was long-term marital disharmony. She suspected that he was having extra-marital affair about half a year before this incident.

On the day in question, when the victim returned to their home in the early morning, defendant acted in a hostile manner. She smashed his teapot, and while he was picking up the broken pieces, she threw corrosive fluid at him. When the victim tried to escape but slipped onto the floor, she splashed more liquid at him.

Their youngest son came to the victim’s rescue, and his feet was also burnt by the fluid on the floor. Upon her arrest, the defendant admitted throwing drainage cleaner at the victim because he was having an extra-marital affair, and he punched her.

She admitted to have brought that bottle of drain-cleaner liquid a month earlier for self-protection and for revenge, planning to splash to injure the victim’s lower parts.

The corrosive acid was found to be sulphuric acid at a concentration of 97 per cent weight by weight. The victim suffered burns over his face and neck, his arm, chest, abdomen, back and right leg. Total body surface area of burns was 30 per cent. He was also chemically injured in his right eye, but the cornea healed after a month after the attack.

The victim was last examined medically in late July this year, a year after the incident. It was found that his right neck scar had contracture which impaired the range of his neck movements. His right shoulder scar affected his joint mobility. Whilst he is currently awaiting scar release and reconstruction surgery, he has to move his body very slowly to avoid the pain of skin stretching. He also suffered pain while sleeping and talking.

The defendant has a clear record, she is 54 years of age. By way of mitigation, it was submitted on her behalf that throughout her marriage, she was herself a victim of domestic violence. She chose to tolerate to keep the family intact. She and the victim have two daughters and a son, and she has always been a good mother to the children.

Since early 2015, she had suspected her husband of having extra-marital affairs, and they had endless quarrels. She suffers from adjustment disorder. She even tried to report to the police the day before the incident after she was allegedly assaulted by her husband after an argument, but was told that this was domestic dispute and they should settle the matter amongst themselves.

On the day in question, prior to the incident, there was heated argument over the same subject matter. It was submitted that the defendant only lost control after being punched by the victim.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the nature of this offence, letters in mitigation, the various reports that I called for, and I have referred to various authorities.

I have referred to the case of Wong Siu Kwan, which bears some similarities to the present case. In both cases, the defendant was in a desperate emotional state over what she believed to be the collapse of her marriage. The Court of Appeal in the Wong’s case was of the view that an appropriate starting point should be one of 5 years.

However, the present case is different from Wong’s case in the following aspects.

Firstly, that case happened at the park, whilst the present case happened at home.

Secondly, whilst it was advanced on the defendant’s behalf that her husband accepted blame and has forgiven her as seen in a letter written on his behalf by his son and signed by him, I have grave reservations about the contents now that I have the victim impact report and the background report before me.

The husband categorically denied having extra-marital affairs, and quite contrary to the letter in mitigation, he told the clinical psychologist that he would “neither forgive her for the rest of his life nor help her plead leniency in court.”

He is much worried that the defendant might continue to attack him or even kill him after she was released. He suffers from post-traumatic stress, including recurrent nightmares and flashbacks, as well as insomnia. He considers himself a disabled person, as his motor skills and quality of life were greatly compromised. He described the situation as rather dying than living, “生不如死”. He is considering to apply for divorce and housing transfer to avoid the defendant.

On the other hand, according to the background report, the defendant is still adamant to keep the whole family intact, and even indicated that she is obliged to take care of the husband and the children “till the end of the world”.

Counsel told me that after hearing the victim impact report, she now realises that there is no hope in her marriage, and is willing to accept a divorce.

Thirdly, the drain-cleaning liquid was purchased a month earlier. And apart from self-protection, the defendant said she planned to splash to injure the victim’s lower parts for revenge on him having an affair. Unlike other cases, when during heated arguments, the defendants used whatever handy in the kitchen or toilet to splash at the victim, so the present case involved both spontaneity as well as some premeditation.

Fourth point, unlike Wong’s case where the acid was thrown form a small pill bottle, thereby a deliberately small amount, the defendant in this case threw the liquid which was contained in an 800 millilitre bottle. And after the incident, only a small amount of liquid was left.

The defendant admitted to have splashed at the victim seven to eight times, and after the victim fell, she continued to splash three to four times. So in a sense, she was determined to pursue the attack.

I have also referred myself to the case of HKSAR v Cheung Cho Fat, where the Court of Appeal considered the facts there as more serious than Wong Siu Kwan, and adopted a starting point of 6 years. The defendant in that case splashed corrosive acid towards his wife, and the Court of Appeal said:

“The fact that the crimes were committed in a domestic context, and that both the wife and the son now sought to minimise the applicant’s punishment was a matter to which the judge could give only limited weight.

...As to the matter of deterrence, it has long been recognised that the throwing of acid at a person is a particularly vicious crime, one viewed with understandable abhorrence by right-thinking members of society. ”

I am of the view that the facts of this case are more serious than the above two. I consider a starting point of 7 and a half years appropriate, reduced to 5 years on a plea, and that is the sentence that I pass.