HKSAR v. Hossain Md Imran and Another

HCCC 296/2023

[2025] HKCFI 2917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 296 OF 2023

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

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

---------------------------------

COURT: The 1st defendant, Hossain Mohammed Imran, and the 2nd defendant, Akter Mrs Farana, both faced one count of murder and one count of child cruelty. The second count, contrary to section 27 of the Offences Against the Person's Ordinance, carries a maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty to both counts. After trial, the jury unanimously found both defendants guilty of murdering their son and both guilty of child cruelty towards the same child.

The facts of this case are tragic. The 1st defendant is a Bangladeshi national but a Hong Kong resident and has been living here since he was a teenager. He is now 34 years old. The 2nd defendant, also a Bangladeshi national, married the 1st defendant in July 2015 and arrived in Hong Kong to live with him in January 2017.

Their first son was born in October 2017 and their second son, the deceased, was born on 7 July 2019. The four of them lived in a small two-room home in Sham Shui Po and all shared a bedroom at the time of this utter tragedy.

On 24 August 2019, the defendants took their 46-day-old baby boy to the Caritas Medical Centre and said he had a fever and a bit of a cough. In reality, he had 11 fractured ribs, a fractured collarbone, a fractured shoulder blade, two fractured thigh bones and serious fatal head injuries. This baby's brain suffered acute subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages, cortical contusions, widespread hemorrhaging in both cerebral hemispheres, cerebral edemas and signs of brain herniation, as well as evidence of diffuse axonal injury, meaning widespread injuries to brain nerve cells. When admitted, his brain was swelling and there was intracranial pressure.

Not long after admission into hospital, he was found to be in a deep coma. That meant he had to be intubated and put on a ventilator. After his brain injuries were discovered in a brain scan, he was transferred to Princess Margaret Hospital in a poor and critical condition where there is a paediatric ICU ward and neurosurgeons.

That evening, three neurosurgeons operated on this baby and could not extract blood clots deemed too deep nor ease intracranial pressure. Tests were conducted on the 28th and 29th August, which showed the baby was brain dead. He died the following day, 30th August.

Since child abuse was suspected, the police were informed. Both defendants were arrested on the 25th August for child cruelty. They were released on bail. Both denied in video-recorded interviews that either of them had physically abused their baby and claimed it was their eldest son, then 22months old, who had inflicted the injuries that morning before admission into hospital, as well as other injuries days prior.

Whilst on bail and before they were re-arrested for murder, the defendants had a third child. The two remaining children are now in the care of the Social Welfare Department. They were arrested for murder after the police approached medical experts for their opinion of how this non-ambulatory baby could have suffered this catalogue of injuries.

A neurologist, an orthopaedic specialist, a radiologist and a paediatrician specialising in child abuse cases all gave evidence that concluded these injuries were as a result of the baby being shaken violently, a victim of shaken baby syndrome or abusive head trauma. The rib fractures would have been specifically inflicted when there was compression on his tiny rib cage from an adult, gripping him with both hands under his armpits.

There were a total of 11 doctors called, 6 who treated him at the two hospitals, and the 4 doctors giving expert evidence I just mentioned, as well as the forensic pathologist. The overriding opinion was that the baby was shaken to death and an adult must have shaken him to death. A 22-month-old toddler did not have the strength, the height or even the hand width to pick up his younger brother and shake him so violently and repeatedly he created enough torsional or shearing force to inflict these injuries.

There was medical opinion that the brain injuries were recent, within 24 hours of the brain scan, which was late afternoon on the 24th August. The defendants' evidence was that from the night of the 23rd August through to the morning of the 24th August, before going to hospital, only the defendants and the eldest son was with the baby and all 4 of them were asleep in the same bedroom.

There being no direct evidence of who shook the baby, the prosecution's case was advanced on the basis that one of the defendants was the principal offender who physically shook the baby and the other defendant assisted, encouraged, aided and abetted the principal offender. Encouraged by failing in his or her duty of care to prevent harm coming to their child. One was the principal offender and one was the accessory.

By returning a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, after they were given directions that it was for the prosecution to prove one of the defendants had physically shaken the baby with the murderous intent, whilst the other aided and abetted by standing by passively and failing in their duty as a parent to their child, the jury must have accepted the prosecution's case and found them both equally liable for murder.

For Count 2, the child cruelty charge, it is confined to the period between the 8th August and the 24th August2019. The day of the baby's last check-up at hospital and his admission into hospital. He did not thrive after that last check-up. He gained very little weight, which the paediatrician, Professor Dorothy Chan, attributed to him not being fed enough by his mother in the absence of any other external factor.

The allegations of child cruelty arose from the defendant's own video-recorded interviews. They failed to take him for medical attention on more than one occasion when they suggested he was feverish on and off for about a week, when the back of his head was cold after his older brother apparently dropped him on the floor. They failed to seek medical attention on the numerous occasions he had marks on his body from being pinched, bitten, scratched or sucked by his older brother. On one occasion, he sustained a cut to his forehead when his older brother threw a mobile phone at him.

The prosecution's case was that the defendants failed to provide him with a safe environment, where he would not be subjected to harm or accidents. They failed to take him to seek medical attention for different injuries and fever, bearing in mind he was only between one month and sixweeksold at that time. They failed to seek help when they suspected he was not gaining weight or thriving properly.

By returning a unanimous verdict for the second count, the jury clearly accepted the prosecution's case and found them both equally culpable and liable for wilfully neglecting and/or ill-treating the baby in a manner likely to cause this baby unnecessary suffering or injury to his health.

Nothing can be said in mitigation that carries any weight. I know all there is to know about their backgrounds. Sadly there are two other victims in this completely disgraceful saga, their two remaining children.

It is hard to believe the defendants shamelessly blamed their innocent eldest child for this baby's death. What they did to the deceased and how they failed to protect him is an abomination to anybody. It is impossible to imagine what pain that poor child would have been in with injuries this serious. He must have suffered.

For the first count, murder, in law there is only one sentence I can pass for an adult person convicted of murder and that is life imprisonment. Therefore, for the offence of murder, the 1st and 2nd defendants are both sentenced to life imprisonment.

For the second count, I have taken into account the facts. There are no specific guidelines for this charge. I sentence each defendant to 6 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently to the life sentence imposed for count one.