HKSAR v. Chau Shi Chiu
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 29/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 24 January 2022.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges:-
Cited by 1 case
|
DCCC 29/2021 [2022] HKDC 98 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 29 OF 2021 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges:-
Summary of facts 2.PW2 broke up with the defendant and he rekindled the relationship with PW1. They lived together with their son in San Po Kong. 3.Since mid-2020, the defendant often came to the downstairs of PW2’ flat and shouted that she would kill PW2’s family. 4.This happened again at about 12:30 am on 30 July 2020. The defendant left before the police arrived. 5.At around 1:30 am, PW2 found out the address of the defendant. Police were called. At the meantime, PW1, PW2 and their son all waited outside the 7-11 Convenience Store, Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate. 6.At around 2 pm, PW1 saw the defendant standing outside a park nearby, the defendant took out an object from her sling bag, unwrapped the object (which was later know to be a pair of scissors) and walked towards PW1 and PW2. 7.The defendant glared at PW1 and stabbed at PW1 with the pair of scissors. PW1 blocked the attack with her right arm, causing a stab wound on her right arm. 8.PW1 moved backwards, but the defendant went forward and stabbed at PW1’s left arm with scissors again. (Charge 1) 9.At the meantime, PW2 moved forward to stop the defendant’s attack with an air purifier. The defendant pushed PW2 over and attempted to stab PW2 with the scissors. PW1 shouted for help , the defendant then fled from the scene. (Charge 2) 10.At around 3 am, the police arrested the defendant nearby for wounding. 11.Injuries of PW1:-
12.PW1 was discharged from Hospital on the following day. Criminal Record 13.The defendant has a clear record at the time of the present offence. 14.In November 2020, the defendant was convicted for a charge of ill-treatment/neglect of her own daughter in September 2018. She left her daughter in a hotel room as she did not have enough money to pay for the hotel bill. Background 15.The defendant is aged 46 and she is divorced. Her son is now 25, lives with her ex-husband in China. 16.The defendant has 3 relationships:-
Mitigation 17.The defence said that the defendant was emotionally attached to PW2 and was financially dependent upon PW2. The defendant believed that it was PW1 manipulated PW2 to break up with her. 18.She went to their place of residence in attempt to reason with them and with a view to save the relationship. However, she did not see them. She returned home. 19.She then received a call from PW2 that he wished to meet her, but PW2 brought along PW1 without telling her. She considered that as a sign of provocation. 20.She took a pair of scissors to meet PW1 and PW2. She acted on the spur of the moment and probably under the influence of multiple substance intoxication, the offences were committed in the heat of the moment. 21.Since she has received proper medical and psychiatric treatment, she is now mentally stable. She now understands the seriousness of these offfences, she also wishes to apologize to PW1 and 2 for her behavior. 22.She also misses her daughter as she has not seen her for a long while. Pre-sentence reports 23.The psychiatric report informed that the defendant has history of depression with drugs misuse. She is now mentally stable and no inpatient treatment is required. Psychologist report 24.The conclusion of the psychologist was that the defendant was an irresponsible mother with drug abuse and mood problem.
Sentence 25.As stated in HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen (2008) 4 HKLRD 673 that the usual range of sentence was between 3 to 12 years. This is only a customery range of sentence. 26.As stated in the summer of facts, PW2 broke up with the defendant, however, the defendant was still emotionally attached to him. 27.In her own mind, she believed that it was PW1 manipulated PW2 to break up with her. 28.PW1 and 2 were formerly a couple and they have a child. The defendant said that she wanted to save the relationship with PW2. 29.It did not appear that by shouting to PW1 and 2 at their place of abode could save the relationship. 30.The defendant also admitted that “she would kill PW2’s family.”. 31.In mitigation, the defence said that the defendant considered the presence of PW1 to be a sign of provocation. 32.Not long before the incident, about one and half hour ago, the defendant went to their place of abode with a view to meet them and to reason with them. 33.However, why one and half hour later, when PW1 and 2 came to meet her, it became a provocation? 34.As to the scissor, I considered that the defendant planned to bring the pair of scissors with her as it was wrapped up and was placed inside her sling bag. She also planned to use it, as evident by the fact that she took it out from her bag, unwrapped it and used it to stab on PW1. 35.PW1 was totally defenceless. She did not have anything to protect herself. The incident occurred in a hot summer night, she must have worn short sleeves, arms were exposed. 36.The pair of scissor was never recovered as the defendant was located an hour later after the incident, she had time to dispose the pair of scissors. 37.Nonetheless, PW1 suffered 3 lacerations over her arms. I have the opportunity to look at the photos and I can see one of the wounds was very serious, it was a broken wound on her right arm. Patches of bloods stains were scattered on the ground. 38.The medical report did not say whether PW1 was required to stitich up her wounds. 39.As to PW2, it was fortunate that he did not suffer any injuries at all. 40.At the material time, the defendant was acting alone. I have been informed that the defendant had taken dangerous drugs before the commission of offences. This was a self-induced circumstances, it did not amount to a mitigation. 41.During the period of remand, the defendant has been assessed by the psychiatrist and psychologist, they all said that the defendant is now mentally stable. No in patient treatment is required. 42.Lastly, bearing in mind that violence would never be regarded as an acceptable way of dealing with personal issues, deterrent sentence is necessary. 43.To this end, I consider that a starting point of 3 years is appropriate for charge 1, given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 2 years. As to charge 2, the starting point is 2 years, reduced to 16 months. 44.I order 8 months from charge 2 to run consecutively to charge 1. Order 45.The defendant is to serve a period of 2 years and 8 months.
|
Other judgments that cite this case