HKSAR v. Ho Po Kwong

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 83/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 February 2018.

Case No.HCCC 83/2017[2021] HKCFI 2835
Court
High Court CFI
Date15 Feb 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 83/2017

[2021] HKCFI 2835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 83 OF 2017

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Ho Po-kwong  

________________________

Before:  Hon Yau J
Date:  15 February 2018 at 10.12 am
Present:  Ms Jasmine Ching, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Andrew Raffell, instructed by Tang & Lee, assigned by DLA, for the accused
Offence:   Murder (謀殺)

________________________

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

________________________


COURT: The defendant, Mr Ho Po-kwong, faces one count of murder, contrary to common law and punishable under section 2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. The particulars are that he on or about 7th day of August 2016, in Hong Kong, murdered Tong Sui-pan. He pleads not guilty to the charge but pleads guilty to manslaughter which is not accepted by the prosecution. After trial, the defendant is convicted unanimously by the jury of the offence of murder.

Evidence in the trial

The defendant is 19 years senior to the deceased who was his wife. They were married in 1997 and they have a daughter who is now an adult. At the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, the wife, who was an insurance agent dealing mainly with customers in China, developed an affair with a man living in China and frequently went to China to visit him. After getting to know about this, the defendant became very upset and developed suicidal idea. Later, the wife initiated divorce.

On the day in question, ie, 6 August 2016, the wife returned to Hong Kong after going to China for about a month. At 10.45 pm that night, the defendant talked to the wife about the matter of divorce in the bedroom of their flat and when the wife insisted on unilateral divorce, the defendant killed her by strangling her and putting an adhesive tapes to cover her nose and mouth.

The defendant left notes giving instructions to his daughter and elder sister regarding things to do including the funeral of himself and the wife which he had prepared in work place a few days prior to the incident. He also wrote a note after killing the wife to tell her daughter that he had just killed the mother and was going to commit suicide.

The defendant then went to commit suicide by jumping into the sea of Tsim Sha Tsui East Promenade but was rescued. He made full confession of the offence after being arrested by the police.

During the trial the defendant gives evidence that he had always been a good husband and a good father and he became very angry and irritated when he learnt about the extramarital affairs of his wife. He was of very low mood and developed the idea of committing suicide in front of his wife so as to make her blame herself. He told his daughter and elder sister about the intention to commit suicide.

He did not intend to kill his wife but on the night in question, the wife insisted on unilateral divorce and compared him with her boyfriend saying that even the blind would choose her boyfriend instead of the defendant. She also made insulting and provoking remarks against him and refused to transfer the ownership of their flat back to the defendant as she had promised. She also told the defendant to apply for public housing together with his daughter and as the defendant was over 60 years of age, the process would be expedited. The flat was originally owned by the defendant and the wife jointly and the whole ownership was transferred when the wife repaid debts for the defendant which the defendant had incurred in meeting household expenditures. The defendant became very crazy. His mind was blank and his world seemed to have fallen down. He could not control himself and killed the wife.

After he had jumped into the sea to commit suicide, he thought of his daughter and shouted for help and was rescued. The defendant denies to have killed his wife intentionally and asserts that he was under diminished responsibility and provocation.

Criminal Record

The defendant has a clear criminal record.

Mitigation

Counsel for the defence hands up to court 4 mitigation letters which are written by 3 neighbours and 1 colleague of the defendant. They all have very high regard for the defendant describing him as a good father and a good husband and a friendly and decent person. They say that the incident is completely out of the character of the defendant.

Counsel for the defence asserts that the contents of these letters fit in the evidence of the defendant’s character as testified to by his sisters, daughter and the character witnesses in the trial. The counsel points out that although the defendant was the author of his own tragedy, he just did not have the mental stamina to overcome the anger given rise by the affairs of the wife. He urges the court to pass some good remarks of the defendant in sentencing.

Sentence

For the offence of murder, the sentence is prescribed by the law and there is only one sentence. It is life imprisonment. It is mandatory and the court has no choice. This case, as pointed out by the counsel for the defence, is a tragedy but had certainly been orchestrated by the defendant himself. After considering the evidence, I have no doubt that the defendant is a good father and a good husband who had pampered both the daughter and the wife with love and care. I also have no doubt that the defendant was the one who took care of most of the household duties and the daughter. He loved his wife but his concept of love was seriously and hopelessly distorted. He regarded love as possessiveness and refused to let go when his wife fell for another man. His thinking developed from jealousy and feeling ashamed to hatred as reflected in his WhatsApp to his daughter saying that the opposite of love was hatred.

As pointed out by the counsel for the defence, the whole matter ended up in the tragedy when the defendant did not have the stamina to control his feeling of hatred. Although there is evidence that the defendant had been suffering from depressive episode, it was not of the degree that would affect his control and rational judgment. No doubt the killing of the wife was well-planned and premeditated. He prepared the notes giving instructions to his daughter and elder sister as to what to do after the death of himself and the wife well before the night of the incident. He also specifically took a pair of gloves from his work place home intending to use them to strangle his wife. After he strangled his wife, he further applied adhesive tapes to the nose and mouth to make sure she could not breathe. This had resulted in the death of the wife.

In this tragedy, the victim is not only the deceased but also the defendant himself and his family particularly the daughter who is completely innocent. She is still young but she will have to live her life under the shadow that her father has killed her mother. The Court can only hope that she is able to live her life well. Although there are letters and evidence about the good character of defendant, as I have pointed out, there is only one sentence for the offence the defendant stands convicted.

The defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment.