COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of attempted murder before a magistrate during his committal proceedings. The plea was therefore one made at the earliest opportunity.
The Particulars of Offence provide that on 18 June 2023, at the McDonald’s restaurant in Sai Ying Pun, the defendant attempted to murder Mr Wong Wut-san (“Mr Wong”).
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides as follows.
The defendant started working at the said restaurant on 27 May 2023. He had since been criticised for his work performance by his managers and colleagues. Mr Wong was tasked with supervising the defendant’s work.
On 18 June 2023, the defendant was not expected to return to the restaurant that day as he had been assigned to work at another McDonald’s restaurant in Admiralty. At about 3.20 pm that day, when Mr Wong saw the defendant at the fried food section of the restaurant, he queried why the defendant did not attend the Admiralty restaurant for work.
Mr Wong then blamed the defendant for his poor work performance. The defendant did not say anything in response.
At about 3.22 pm, the defendant left the restaurant and obtained two cleavers from a nearby meat stall on Queen’s Road West. He returned to the restaurant at about 3.23 pm and proceeded to the manager’s office where Mr Wong was working, holding a cleaver in each of his hands. While Mr Wong was sitting on a chair and working on the computer, the defendant attacked Mr Wong from behind by slashing at the back of Mr Wong’s head with a cleaver twice. Mr Wong immediately turned around and tried to fend off the blows, but the defendant slashed Mr Wong again at his forehead and continued to slash at Mr Wong’s head with both cleavers. Mr Wong then stood up and pushed the defendant away from the manager’s office.
Mr Wong shouted for help while trying to grab the hands of the defendant. The defendant then lost grip of one of the cleavers which fell onto the ground. Shortly thereafter, a Mr Chan, a customer of the restaurant who was an off-duty fireman, came to assist and snatched the remaining cleaver from the defendant’s hand. Mr Chan managed to separate Mr Wong from the defendant, who then fled from the scene.
Mr Wong, who was seriously injured, was sent to the Queen Mary Hospital for medical treatment.
Mr Wong was severely injured in the incident. On his admission to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Queen Mary Hospital on 18 June 2023, Mr Wong was diagnosed as suffering with an approximately 15-centimetre laceration on his occipital scalp and an approximately 10-centimetre laceration on his posterior neck. He was also found to have a forehead laceration and a depressed skull fracture.
On further examination, Mr Wong was diagnosed as suffering with laceration over his posterior neck down to the 6th and 7th cervical interlamina space, and depressed skull fracture over the left temporal region. An emergency operation was performed on him and it was found that all his neck muscles were cut. Mr Wong’s physical condition gradually became stable after an operation.
Mr Wong was transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to the Neurosurgical Ward on 19 June 2023. During his stay in the hospital, Mr Wong was further diagnosed as suffering with acute stress disorder as a result of the incident. He was recommended to receive psychological service. He was discharged from the Queen Mary Hospital on 26 June 2023, and admitted to a private hospital for further treatment.
The defendant admits that at the material time, he intended to kill Mr Wong, and attempted to murder Mr Wong by attacking Mr Wong’s head and neck with cleavers.
Up to date medical reports, which are not disputed by the defendant, show that Mr Wong is still suffering from serious disabilities as a result of the attack by the defendant. According to the speech therapist, Mr Wong is suffering from expressive language aphasia and cognitive communication disorder. The clinical psychologist reports that despite the incident occurring over a year and a half ago, the current examination indicates that Mr Wong continues to suffer from the aftermath of the traumatic incident, including various physical and psychological distress. Mr Wong is still presenting with a moderate level of depressive symptoms and a severe level of anxiety, while his current condition meets the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There is significant impairment across multiple facets of his daily life, including his work, social interactions, family relationships, and personal well-being. On top of the above, Mr Wong suffers visual field defects, with the percentage of incapacity to his visual field being 55 per cent.
By way of personal background, the defendant was born in the Mainland, China in 1994. In 1999, at the age of five, the defendant came to Hong Kong to settle. In 2012 the defendant completed his formal education after finishing Secondary 6. For the next six years until 2018, the defendant was unemployed. Aside from working at the McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant had previously worked in a Japanese restaurant for three months. The defendant is single and has a clear criminal record.
It is trite that there is no tariff sentence for the offence of “Attempted Murder”. In HKSAR v Yip Chu Sum, CACC 367/2001 (Judgment dated 13 June 2022) at paragraph 16, Stock JA commented that the offence of attempted murder is one for which no sentencing guidelines exist, because the circumstances of that offence will vary considerably from case to case.
In HKSAR v Lee Wai Keung, CACC 230/2009 (Judgment dated 12 May 2010) at paragraph 30, Saw J (giving judgment of the Court of Appeal) stated as follows:
“The offence of attempted murder can be committed in many ways. It is always as we have earlier observed a serious offence. Some cases are more serious than others because of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the victim. Some cases are more serious by reason of the fact that the course adopted by the accused would almost inevitably have resulted
in the death of the victim had there not been an intervention. In the instant case, both aggravating factors are present.”
In that case, the Court of Appeal did not criticise a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment.
In the present case, both of the aggravating factors identified by the Court of Appeal in Lee Wai Keung apply. The injuries and resulting disabilities suffered by Mr Wong is very serious indeed. Further, but for the brave intervention of Mr Chan as mentioned above, the death of Mr Wong would almost invariably have resulted. In view of the fact that the injuries suffered by Mr Wong is indeed more extensive and more serious than those identified in the Lee Wai Keung case, I am of the view that a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
In coming to that view, I do not accept the defendant’s submission that provocation is a mitigating factor in this case. Clearly, the response by the defendant was wholly disproportionate to the nature, duration, and gravity of the provocation alleged by the defendant. I do not agree that the alleged provocative conduct was such as to reduce the offender’s culpability in any way.
On the other hand, I agree that the short duration between the criticism and the reaction of the defendant to a certain extent indicate that the element of premeditation was low. But for this factor I would have adopted an even higher starting point of around 16 years.
The only effective mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s timely guilty plea at the Magistrates’ Court. For this, I will give him the full one-third discount.
Accordingly, I sentence you to 10 years’ imprisonment.