The defendant faced one count of murder and one count of “preventing the burial of a body”. At the committal stage, she offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, which plea was not accepted by the prosecution at that time. She was therefore committed to this court for trial. However, before the case management hearing was due to take place, parties informed the court that the prosecution would now accept the defendant’s plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility in full satisfaction of the count of murder on the indictment and would apply for the count of “preventing the burial of a body” to be left on the court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.
On 18 May 2020, when the defendant appeared before me, she pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility and accepted the Summary of Facts. I therefore convicted the defendant accordingly, that is, convicted her of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. As regards the burial count, the defendant pleaded not guilty and I ordered it to be left on the court file as requested by the prosecution.
The Summary of Facts accepted by the defendant consisted of 19 pages and the prosecution had in it described in graphic detail the discovery of the body of the deceased. I do not propose to repeat all the matters contained in the facts but anyone reading the facts would probably agree that the deceased girl was killed and dismembered in such a brutal way that mere reading of the facts might make one shiver.
The manner of the killing aside, this is a very tragic case in which the defendant, for no apparent reasons and without any signs, suddenly took away the life of her only child.
Briefly, the Agreed Facts revealed that the deceased girl was aged 12 at the time when she met with her tragic death. She was then residing in a subdivided flat with her mother, the defendant, who was then aged 37. At around 2121 hours on 17 December 2017, police officers responded to a report made by Madam Zeng who lived on the same floor as that of the defendant. Zeng told the police that at around 1930 hours, the defendant went over to Zeng’s unit and asked to borrow Zeng’s mobile phone, saying that she had to call her husband in the Mainland to help her fix a broken water pipe at her home. At that time, Zeng could see water leaking out from the defendant’s cubicle. Zeng initially refused but the defendant provided a set of numbers to Zeng, saying that her husband could be reached by calling that number through WeChat. Zeng tried but without success. The defendant then left.
However, at around 2000 hours, the defendant again knocked on Zeng’s door, asking to borrow the phone for a second time. Zeng gave it to the defendant but she found the defendant nervous. After a while, Zeng and her husband, who had by then returned home, asked the defendant to return the phone. The defendant refused and went back to her flat, locking the metal gate. A report was therefore made to the police. When the police officers proceeded upstairs, they noticed water flowing down the staircase with the smell of disinfectant.
When the police knocked on the gate of the defendant’s flat, the defendant refused to open it. The officers noticed that the defendant was speaking awkwardly and was emotional. They saw the defendant kneel down on the ground and cry. The defendant also hit her head against the wall and asked the officers to leave.
At about 2220 hours, officers broke into the flat and controlled the defendant who continued to behave emotionally. When the police handcuffed the defendant, they noticed that the defendant’s hands were stained with blood and there were bruises at the back of both of her hands with scratch marks at her fingers.
Cubicle A was locked at the time. When the police pushed open the door, it was noticed that the floor was covered with water and some internal organs were placed on a stool in the room. Inside the shower cubicle, multiple pieces of dismembered body parts were soaked in water, including the deceased’s torso, upper and lower limbs. There was also a bloodstained chopper placed on top of the body parts. Further, a board was put on top of the toilet bowl and there was a cooking pot on the board. A human head with bloodstained water was found inside the pot.
When the defendant was later interviewed by the police, she told the police that her daughter, the deceased, moved to Hong Kong from the Mainland in 2015. Initially, the deceased was taken care of by a relative. However, starting from October 2017, her daughter moved to live with her. According to the defendant, the deceased usually slept in cubicle A while the defendant herself slept in cubicle B. When asked why there were body parts inside cubicle A, the defendant said she was not clear about it and just that she wanted to call her godfather for help. When further asked where her daughter was, the defendant refused to answer. However, the defendant replied that she last saw the deceased at around 0400 to 0500 hours on 17 December 2017. The deceased was playing with her phone in cubicle A at that time. The defendant then returned to cubicle B.
During the second interview, the defendant did not speak coherently as observed by the police officers and she mentioned a “voice in heart” and that she was asked to go to cubicle A to take a look at her daughter. The defendant said she did so and saw the deceased sleeping. When she woke up, that is when the defendant woke up at about 1600 to 1700 hours, she saw water on the floor and when she went to cubicle A, she found it very messy and the deceased was not there. She then saw a dead body inside the toilet and the “voice in heart” told her that it was not her daughter.
In the autopsy report, Dr Lam stated that the cause of death was unascertained and the time of death was estimated to be on 17 December 2017. Dr Lam opined that the dismemberment and infliction of the sharp injuries were likely to be post‑mortem. However, the multiple bruises or bruised abrasions on the head, face, neck, upper back and upper limbs were ante-mortem. Further, the finding of multiple bruises around the mouth and on the neck might indicate that pressure had been applied on these vital areas and there was the possibility of asphyxia death.
Police investigation revealed that Madam Xu, who lived on the same floor and was watching television at home, heard chopping sound coming from the outside at the frequency of about one hit per second at about 1400 hours on 17 December. It went on for about 30 minutes, stopped for about 20 minutes, then started again for about 15 minutes and stopped for about 30 minutes. Later, there was the sound of the breaking of glass. Soon afterwards, Madam Xu smelt a strong odour or detergent coming from outside.
One of the deceased’s classmates also told the police that she went to the defendant’s premises the day before the deceased was killed. She met the defendant on that occasion and she did not observe anything unusual on that day. Similarly, the deceased’s class mistress said that she met with the defendant and the deceased in school in November 2017 and found that the defendant was supportive towards the deceased.
Madam Huang, the defendant’s relative, was also interviewed by the police. She said that she visited the defendant a number of times in early December 2017 and she found the defendant behaving awkwardly with the defendant once calling herself the Queen Goddess and referring to her colleagues as snake monsters. In the small hours of 16 December 2017, the defendant told her that someone was trying to trap or harm her. The defendant was, at the time, behaving emotionally and looking fierce. Madam Huang suggested the defendant to seek medical help but the defendant became agitated.
The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation
The defendant is now aged 40 and has a clear record in Hong Kong. She was born in the Mainland and was educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to this offence, the defendant worked as a masseuse. The defendant is divorced but has had two marriages. The deceased was born out of the defendant’s first marriage and as disclosed in the Summary of Facts, the deceased only started to live with the defendant in October 2017.
In mitigation, Mr Raffell for the defendant put before me statements made by the deceased’s class teacher, the insurance agent of the defendant and a reverend who works in correctional institutions to show that the defendant was a caring mother who had plans for her daughter. Further, Mr Raffell put particular emphasis on the defendant’s concern about the deceased just a few weeks before this terrible killing, as related by the deceased’s class teacher.
Specifically, Mr Raffell highlighted the fact that the defendant would be guilt-ridden for the rest of her life given what has happened. Clearly, there is no evidence before me which points to any underlying animosity between the defendant and the deceased. Similarly, there is nothing before me which would cause me to doubt the good intention the defendant might have for her daughter before the killing as urged upon me by Mr Raffell. Such background information makes this case even more tragic for if not because of the psychosis the defendant was suffering from at the time, she would not kill her only daughter who, based on the matters put before me, was one she loved and cared about.
The Psychiatric Reports
I have got reports from two psychiatrists filed at the time when the defendant pleaded guilty before me. Both psychiatrists gave the opinion that at the time of the killing, the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind or was experiencing psychotic symptoms which substantially impaired her ability to form a rational judgment and to exercise self-control.
I have since ordered two further psychiatric reports to give opinions on the question of hospital order, which reports I now have. The reports disclosed that the defendant had taken heroin since the age of 20, up to three times per week for a period of two years. She then started using ‘Ice’ daily since February 2017. Prior to the present offence, the defendant was not known to the mental health service. However, about two years before the killing, the defendant told her boyfriend that she was being possessed by a ghost and her boyfriend also noticed the defendant behaving awkwardly at times.
Now, both Dr Bonnie Siu and Dr Jane So find the defendant to have been suffering from amphetamine‑induced psychosis with a differential diagnosis of schizophrenia with history of polysubstance abuse. At present, the defendant is still actively psychosis with auditory hallucination and delusion of being possessed. The defendant has to continue her psychiatric treatment and therefore, both recommend a hospital order for an unspecified period.
The Sentence in This Case
Having considered all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of this offence, the character and antecedents of the defendant, the psychiatric evidence placed before me, and the other available methods of dealing with the defendant, I find that the most suitable method of disposing of this case is by imposing a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, for an unspecified period as recommended by Dr Siu and Dr So, and I so order.