HKSAR v. Wong Chun Kit

HCCC 145/2025
HCCC 146/2025
(Heard together)

[2026] HKCFI 3361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 145 AND 146 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was charged with one count of “murder” in HCCC 145/2025, and one count of “preventing the lawful burial of a body” in HCCC 146/2025.

2.At the committal proceedings, the prosecution informed the court that it was prepared to accept the defendant’s offer to plead guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility, now HCCC 145/2025.  The defendant also pleaded guilty to the offence of “preventing the lawful burial of a body”, now HCCC 146/2025.

3.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant provides, inter alia, as follows.

Background

4.Mr Wong Chi-hung (“Mr Wong”), and Madam Lo Choi-kiu, Sandy (“the Deceased”) got married in mainland China in 1995. The Deceased gave birth to the defendant in the mainland in 1997 and they came to settle in Hong Kong with Mr Wong in 2000.

5.In 2009, the family started living in a public housing unit at Flat 905, Sheung Wing House, Upper Ngau Tau Kok Estate, No. 189 Ngau Tau Kok Road, Sau Mau Ping (“the Flat”).  In 2010, Mr Wong and the Deceased got divorced and Mr Wong had moved out from the Flat since then.

6.Both the Deceased and the defendant were unemployed and were living on CSSA at the material time. 

Psychiatric history of the Defendant

7.The defendant was first known to the mental health service in 2015 and was hospitalised at the United Christian Hospital (“UCH”) from 14 May 2015 to 25 June 2015.  He was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder (manic type).  He had to attend follow-up consultation at a psychiatric unit of the UCH after discharge and was prescribed with medication. 

8.The defendant suffered from a relapse in 2016 due to irregular drug compliance after discharge and was compulsorily admitted into Kowloon Hospital from 23 March 2016 to 12 April 2016.  He was discharged when his mental state had become stabilised with the resumed medication and he had to continue with his psychiatric follow-up consultation.

9.The defendant was last seen at the psychiatric out-patient clinic at the UCH on 12 October 2022 and was documented to be mentally well.  No medication was prescribed as requested by the defendant.

Events leading up to the Deceased’s death

10.Mr Leung Kin-ching (“Mr Leung”) was a community psychiatric nurse in UCH.  He was assigned to follow up with the defendant’s case in April 2021. 

11.At about noon on 24 November 2022, the Deceased told Mr Leung over the phone that:

(i) the defendant’s psychiatric condition had deteriorated;

(ii) he had a bad temper;

(iii) he had once assaulted her with his hand and thrown a coin at her;

(iv) he prevented her from leaving her room; and

(v) he started saying nonsense.

12.Later that day, Mr Leung and his colleagues paid a home visit to the Flat and the defendant was not at home.  The Deceased said the defendant had once hit her head with a spoon and thrown a coin at her.  The defendant had once returned home but left immediately when he saw them. 

13.At about 4.10 pm on 25 November 2022, the Deceased made a report of the defendant’s missing at the Sau Mau Ping Police Station Report Room. 

14.At about 9 pm that day, the Deceased made a call to the Sau Mau Ping Police Station Report Room and said that the defendant had returned home. 

15.At about 4.25 pm on 30 November 2022, Mr Leung and his colleagues arrived outside the Flat for a home visit and they heard noises coming therefrom.  A case was reported and the firemen, ambulancemen and police soon arrived at the scene.

16.At about 5.37 pm, a forcible entry was made into the Flat as no one answered the door.  The defendant was found standing near the television in the living room and appeared calm and cooperative.  Upon being asked where the Deceased was, he replied that she should be out finding her friends.

17.At about 5.39 pm, in the defendant’s room, the Deceased’s body was found in the storage space of the bed (of about 6 feet x 4 feet in size) underneath the mattress and the wooden board. 

18.Upon examination, the Deceased was lying prone, with her hands facing down, her tongue extending out and her head slightly tilting right.  Rigor mortis were found all over her body and limbs.  There were signs of decomposition and there was darkening at her head and neck.  The surface of her head was wet with transparent liquid with a small amount of blood found.  There was no identifiable injury at her back, her front part and legs.

19.The Deceased was certified dead at 5.52 pm on 30 November 2022 at the scene. 

20.The defendant was arrested for the offence of murder.  He was found to have a bruise on his right little finger and abrasion on his left fist.

21.Forensic pathologist Dr Mok Ka-kin attended the Flat at about 10.15 pm on 30 November 2022 and the following were revealed:

(1) preliminary examination conducted on the Deceased at the scene showed (i) multiple bruises on the upper back of chest, left lower abdomen, lower back right buttock, back of upper limbs and both lower limbs, (ii) abrasions on the lower back of chest, lower back, right buttock and other aspects of right thigh and legs, and (iii) impression marks in the form of blanching on the back of forearms and left wrist;

(2) the body showed early to moderate decomposition changes with light greenish to greenish skin discoloration on the head, neck, shoulders, upper front of chest near shoulders and both upper flanks. Mild bloating of soft issues was noted on these areas, especially on the head and neck. Slippage of cuticle was also noted on the cheeks, chin and lower front of neck. Marbling of veins were noted on the upper chest, both flanks and both upper limbs. Hypostasis could be identified on the front of the body. Rigor mortis had passed away; and

(3) given the post-mortem changes and the environmental conditions, the estimated time of death was about a few days prior to the preliminary examination.

22.Based on the autopsy performed on 1 December 2022, Dr Mok opined, inter alia, the following:

(1) there were moderate decomposition changes with disintegration of internal organ architecture;

(2) the overall pattern of injuries, including (i) the multiple blunt force injuries in the form of bruises and abrasions at different parts of the body, including the trunk and limbs, (ii) deep tissue bruises at the upper front and back of chest, both shoulders and back of both upper arms, and (iii) the pattern of injuries on the back of forearm and hands which was compatible with being defensive injuries, could be compatible with violence prior to death. Presence of the defensive injuries indicated that the Deceased was conscious at the time of violence and she had tried to ward off against the attack. Although these injuries appeared to be relatively non-fatal and there was no associated bony injury or underlying organ damage, it is known that extensive soft tissue injuries could lead to various complications. Yet, the degree of decomposition changes rendered it not possible to identify these conditions;

(3) no sign of any identifiable significant natural diseases was revealed, but the moderate decomposition changes shown could have precluded a detailed pathological examination of the organs to determine any other significant conditions which could have contributed to the death;

(4) as the Deceased was found lying inside the storage space of a bed which is a confined space with the roof, the floor and the four walls which were all made up of wood, if she had been kept in the storage space for a considerable amount of time, deprivation of oxygen and accumulation of carbon dioxide could be resulted. Yet, as there was no specific sign of suffocation due to inadequate atmospheric oxygen or excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide, whether the Deceased could have suffocated could not be confirmed or excluded by autopsy findings alone; and

(5) due to all the limitations, the exact cause of death could not be established and the cause of death was given as “Unascertained”.

23.By a supplemental report dated 10 November 2023, Dr Mok further opined, inter alia, the following:

(1) the multiple blunt force injuries and abrasions found on the Deceased were of different ages in that some were recent and some showed healing signs. The fresh injuries could have been inflicted within about one to two days before death, while the healing injuries could have been inflicted about a few days before death;

(2) based on some further medical reports provided to him, there was no significant chronic disease suffered by the Deceased which could have accounted for her death; and

(3) although the cause of death was concluded as “Unascertained” and the cause of suffocation could not be confirmed or excluded by autopsy findings alone, in view of the circumstantial evidence that the Deceased was found in a confined space and no other identifiable fatal cause could be established, it was possible for the Deceased to have died of suffocation.

24.Subsequent to the present offence, a total of three reports have been obtained from two specialist psychiatrists, namely:

(1) a report of Dr Chung See-yuen, specialist in psychiatry in private practice, dated 5 July 2024. In preparing his report, Dr Chung interviewed the defendant at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for about 2 hours and 15 minutes on 19 June 2024;

(2) a report of Dr Kimberly Yip, visiting psychiatrist of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, dated 13 August 2024 as requested by the defence; and

(3) another report of Dr Kimberly Yip dated 30 August 2024 as requested by the prosecution.

25.Both Dr Chung and Dr Yip are of the opinion that, at the time of killing, the defendant was suffering from a relapse of Schizoaffective Disorder.  This disorder is a recognised medical condition marked by concurrent presentation of schizophrenia symptoms and mood symptoms.

The defendant’s symptoms included auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions against the Deceased, formal thought disorder, elated and irritable mood, inflated self-esteem, grandiose ideas, overspending and poor recollection of events.

26.Both Dr Chung and Dr Yip take the view that the defendant was suffering from a disease of mind, namely Schizoaffective Disorder, and its symptoms had substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his killing of the Deceased at the material time. 

27.In the Summary of Facts, the defendant expressly accepts and admits that he unlawfully killed the Deceased on or about 25 November 2022.  He pleads guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility in satisfaction of the indictment for murder.  The defendant also expressly accepts and admits in the Summary of Facts that he prevented the lawful burial of the Deceased’s body on or about 25 November 2022.

28.Regarding the personal background of the defendant, he is 28 years of age and single.  He was educated up to Secondary Form 6 level and went on to attend classes at the Institute of Vocational Education (“IVE”), with respect to computer studies, a diploma in Chinese language and a foundation course for an associate degree in media, but gave them all up through his lack of interest. 

29.He has previously worked for 18 months in the food industry and two weeks in January 2022 as a salesman.  He is a recipient of social welfare from the government.

30.The defendant was, prior to this case, a person of a clear record. 

31.In manslaughter cases, there are a variety of circumstances in which the offences are committed.  There are understandably no guidelines or tariff.  In HKSAR v Chiu Wai Kan Vicken (No.2) [2011] 5 HKLRD 422, at paragraph 22, Stock VP quoted the dicta of Leonard J in R v Stephen Francis Chambers (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 190 at 193 as follows:

“In diminished responsibility cases there are various courses open to a judge. His choice of the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and material before him. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probabilities, be one of life imprisonment.

In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused’s responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom, possibly with some supervision.

There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in which the accused’s degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases, the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public.”

32.In the present case, I accept that although this incident is a tragic one, the defendant’s fault is mitigated by the fact that he was unable to control his own psychiatric condition.  The defendant’s diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder has substantially impaired his ability to know what was right and what was wrong. 

33.In the present case, two psychiatric reports have been prepared, and both psychiatrists recommend that a hospital order be made.  Dr Kimberley Yip, in her report dated 27 March 2026, concluded as follows, at paragraphs 19, 20 and 24 to 26:

“19. Wong is diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder - manic type, and was likely suffering from a relapse of Schizoaffective Disorder at the time of the offence...

20. Wong was suffering from an abnormality of mind - Schizoaffective Disorder - at the time of the offence. The symptoms of his Schizoaffective Disorder had substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his act at the material time.

…

24. In view of Wong’s lack of insight towards his mental illness, cognitive deficits, and history of serious violence, further in-patient psychiatric treatment would be necessary for treatment and stabilization of his psychotic symptoms, and rehabilitation. In-patient psychiatric treatment would be necessary, for the safety of himself and others.

25. Out-patient psychiatric treatment would not be appropriate in view of a number of reasons. Firstly, Wong remains to be guarded when seen by the undersigned; deficits in his judgment, reasoning and emotion are also apparent. Second, Wong has poor insight towards his mental illness along. Treatment and follow-up compliance in the community would be highly doubtful. Thirdly, Wong has limited social support and supervision in the community. Lastly, a period of rehabilitation, in a multi-disciplinary approach would be necessary for Wong: apart from psychiatric treatment with medication, psychological input to work on the patient’s insight, disease acceptance, and psychoeducation would be needed; occupational rehabilitation for vocational and cognitive training are equally important. Further treatment and rehabilitation have great implications in relapse prevention and risk control.

26. If the Court sees it fit, a Hospital Order for an unspecified period, under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, would be respectfully recommended. He could serve his sentence at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, where provision has been made for him.”

34.Dr S H Lui, in his report dated 24 March 2026, at paragraph 6, also concluded as follows:

“6. Opinion: Wong is suffering from a severe mental illness, namely schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. At the time of his admission to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre in December 2022 he was in a state of florid psychosis, hallucinating, harbouring bizarre, delusional beliefs and feeling being physically controlled. While with treatment over the past three years much of the active psychotic symptoms have apparently waned Wong remains mystic, his mind inaccessible. Significant impairments in the personality such including thinking, logic, judgment, emotions and morals are evident; he is calculating, has a tendency to hide up mental symptoms and he has no insight into his mental illness. At large he is unlikely to comply with follow-up at the outpatient clinic. Hospital treatment is essential given the risks of violence and as there is no telling when he will be sufficiently well and safe for discharge. I would recommend to the court, if it sees fit, that Wong be committed to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on a hospital order, under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, for an unspecified period. His future release shall depend on progress and subject to the regular review of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, under the same.”

35.Thus, both doctors recommend the making of a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136, for an unspecified period. 

36.I am satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the present offences, the character and antecedents of the defendant, and to the available methods of dealing with the defendant, that the most suitable method of sentencing the defendant is by way of a concurrent hospital order, which is necessary for the protection of the public and in the interest of the defendant. 

37.Accordingly, for both the offence of manslaughter in HCCC 145/2025, and the offence of preventing the lawful burial of a body in HCCC 146/2025, I sentence the defendant to a concurrent hospital order for an unspecified period at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

Ms Cherry Chong, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr David Boyton, instructed by King & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused