COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to two counts of throwing corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.
At around 12.30 noon on 25 January 2020, the defendant, a former resident of one Pak Ho Gerocomy Centre, returned to the said elderly home with a bottle of drain cleaner containing sulphuric acid and two bottles of toilet water.
As the defendant moved out of the elderly home earlier without giving due notice, a deposit of HK$8,200 had been forfeited by the management of the elderly home.
(Interruption by the accused)
Court adjourns - 2.50 pm
Court resumes - 2.59 pm
Accused present. Appearances as before.
COURT: Despite his repeated requests for the return of the deposit, the management of the elderly home insisted that he was not entitled to it.
Four staff were having their lunch at the time. The defendant went up and without saying a word splashed the acid at them.
Both Madam Shum and Madam Lin (two staff) sustained different degrees of burn. Madam Shum’s forehead, upper lips, both forearms were injured. Madam Lin suffered a great deal more. Her entire face, throat, ear, were all severely injured. Seven per cent of her total body surface was affected. She was rushed to the hospital and intubation was performed.
Assessment for victim impact reports from both ladies have been obtained since last hearing. Without going into all the details and specifics, I do not think anyone can dispute that Madam Lin is still going through a great deal of pain both physically and psychologically. The injuries sustained by her were horrific beyond words.
Madam Shum fortunately suffered less physically and psychologically due to her personal resilience and strong sense of responsibility and self-reliance. Nevertheless she still has symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The defendant is now 87 with two criminal records, both involving violence. He was convicted in 2001 for murdering a colleague at work and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His sentence was commuted to 27 years’ imprisonment by the Chief Executive in April 2017. He was eventually released from prison in June 2018. In other words, the present incident took place only 18 months after his release.
The lengthy incarceration at prison seems to have little deterrent effect on him using violence. In short, the defendant is a very violent man who still likes to resort to violence once things do not go his way. That can be seen today during the court proceedings as well. He is, in my view, just as dangerous as 22 years ago and should not be released until his risk to the safety of our community can completely be eliminated.
Authorities have been furnished to the court by both parties. As far as I can see, the only mitigation put forward by the defence, by Mr Chau, is of course the defendant’s plea and to a lesser extent, his age. However, his plea was not tendered at the earliest opportunity but only on the first day of the trial after a plea bargain.
There are no sentencing guidelines in respect of this particular offence, however the Court of Appeal gave a detailed analysis of factors which may affect the length of the sentence in relation to this offence and the rationale behind the sentence, in the case of HKSAR v Lau Ching Him CACC 271/2016.
In the present case, the attack was carefully planned, aimed at causing maximum harm to the staff whilst they were having their lunch. The defendant took with him not one but altogether three bottles of corrosive fluids, albeit he only used one during the attack. The sulphuric acid he used to carry out the attack had a concentration of 98 per cent, no doubt with the intention of inflicting the most severe injuries on his targets.
I of course note that the defendant is now aged 87 and approaching the end of his journey in life. His health condition on the other hand seems to be normal and good. The likelihood of him dying in prison cannot be eliminated, should any lengthy sentence be imposed.
However, given the circumstances that this was a premeditated vicious attack on innocent staff with the intention of inflicting maximum injuries and did result in causing permanent disfigurement and extensive injuries to Madam Lin, the starting point for Charge 3 will be set at 18 years’ imprisonment. Seven per cent of Madam Lin’s total body area had been affected. The extent of her injuries was greater than any other cases.
Given the injuries sustained by Madam Shum was less severe, the starting point for Count 2 will be reduced to one of 9 years’ imprisonment. Having considered the defendant’s past violent records, the overall circumstances of the case, the appropriate overall starting point in my view should be set at 20 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant entered his plea of guilty on the first day of the trial. His entitlement for discount is therefore limited in my view to 25 per cent only.
As such, for the 2nd count, the defendant is sentenced to 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. For the 3rd count, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. It is therefore ordered that 1 years and 6 months of Count 2 will run consecutively to the 13 years and 6 months imposed on Count 3, thus making a total of 15 years’ imprisonment.
In conclusion, for the two offences that the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment.