HKSAR v. Ng Ka Sing
|
HCCC 340/2024 [2026] HKCFI 4963 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 340 OF 2024 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording
COURT: The defendant, Ng Ka-sing, was charged with the following. The 1st charge is murder, contrary to Common Law and punishable under Section 2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. The 2nd charge is preventing the lawful burial of a body, contrary to Common Law and punishable under Section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the 1st count and guilty to the 2nd count. The defendant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act in relation to the murder charge was not accepted by the prosecution. But since the defendant pleaded guilty to the 2nd count immediately before the empanelment of jury, there was not enough time for parties to submit a set of Admitted Facts. I decided to press on with the trial and to consider if the evidence adduced supported the charge. After hearing the evidence, I was satisfied that the defendant prevented the lawful burial of the body of Yip Tsz-ching and I convicted him of the offence. As for the murder count, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the murder count and found the defendant guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The Summary of Facts In the early hours of 29 April 2022, two joggers and a cleaner saw the defendant pulling a trolley or a dolly with the deceased, Yip Tsz-ching, lying on it. The deceased’s head was wrapped in plastic cling film and her body was covered by a quilt, a chair and rubbish bags. Police was alerted, and ambulancemen arrived and declared the deceased dead. The defendant, who was at the scene, was arrested, and under caution he admitted that the deceased was his girlfriend. He told the police, “I hit her to death with a rod by mistake.” The defendant was taken back to the police station. He attended a number of video-recorded interviews. There was also a re-enactment of the incident. The defendant admitted he was responsible for the death of the deceased. An autopsy was conducted by a forensic pathologist, Dr Foo Ka-chung. Various injuries were found on the deceased, including widespread caustic burns in her lower body. The cause of death was “suffocation following head injuries and extensive cutaneous burns”. The defendant gave evidence and denied that he had caused the head injuries or the cutaneous burns on the deceased. He admitted hitting the deceased with a wooden rod, which was part of a baby chair, on the deceased’s arm and back. He denied hitting her on the head. He described the deceased slipping down and bumping her head, which might have caused the head injuries. He admitted pouring drain cleaner towards the deceased three times but none of the liquid came into contact with the deceased. He did not see how the deceased got drain cleaner on her body. As the deceased had slipped and fallen on the floor which had spilt drain cleaners on it, the defendant said the deceased might have got her hands and arms burnt when her body came into contact with the corrosive fluid on the floor. The defendant admitted wrapping cling film around the deceased’s head - I call it the wrapping act - when he adopted the last of a few options to dispose of the deceased’s body, which resulted in the deceased’s death due to suffocation. He stressed that at the time of the wrapping act he believed the deceased was dead. He did not have the intention to kill or to cause the deceased really serious bodily injuries when he did the wrapping act. In the various video-recorded interviews conducted with him, he had given description of events which were at variance with his testimony in court. The defendant explained that he was confused at the time, his mind was blank and he did not know why he had given the incorrect versions. The defendant described how he came to live with the deceased at a flat occupied by the sworn sister of the deceased together with the husband of the sworn sister called Ah Long, sworn brother of the sworn sister called Ah Hong, and the children of the sworn sister and Ah Long. The defendant said he was subjected to occasional violence by the sworn sister and Ah Long since September 2021 and he was forced to pay rental, which he could not afford, forcing him to borrow money from financial companies. Eventually he was prevented from going to work or leaving the flat. On 27 April 2022, the defendant was required to keep the deceased from sleeping and eating more than she was allowed as part of a weight loss regime imposed by the sworn sister. The defendant was scared of the sworn sister and Ah Long, so he hit the deceased’s back with a wooden rod when the sworn sister and Ah Long told him he had to keep the deceased awake by any means. The defendant said he intermittently hit the deceased throughout the night of 27 April to the morning of 28 April. The defendant admitted throwing drain cleaner towards the deceased three times but none of the liquid hit the deceased. The defendant described the deceased falling down on several occasions hitting her head and becoming weaker and weaker. The deceased went to the bathroom but came out naked without having washed herself. She collapsed on the floor and the defendant dragged her to the bathroom to wash her. The defendant left her in the bathroom and was later told by Ah Long that the deceased was dead. The defendant dragged the deceased out of the bathroom and attempted CPR without success. The defendant then followed Ah Long’s directions to handle the corpse. The last method adopted by the defendant was to place the deceased on a trolley or a dolly. As the deceased was still bleeding from the head, the defendant wrapped the cling film around the deceased’s head to contain the bleeding. He covered the deceased with various items, including a quilt, a chair and a number of plastic bags. The defendant pulled the trolley with the deceased and left the flat at around 3.40 am and was subsequently discovered and arrested at about 6 am. Under arrest, the defendant told the police that he had bashed the deceased to death with a rod by mistake. By acquitting the defendant of murder and finding him guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the jury must have found the defendant’s account of the events true, or may be true, and that the prosecution have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant had murdered the deceased. I will therefore sentence the defendant on that basis. The background of the defendant The defendant is 29 years old, single. He was born in China Mainland. When he was 3, his mother brought him to join his father and elder brother in Hong Kong. The defendant was educated up to Form 3 level. He had done various jobs including warehouse assistant, construction worker. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he worked in an abattoir earning around $10,000 a month. The defendant has a clear record. The psychologist’s report Ms Daisy Yeung, clinical psychologist of the Correctional Services Department, provided a detailed psychological report on the defendant. Various tests were administered to the defendant and his description to Ms Yeung of the events leading to the death of the deceased was the same as what he had told the court. I do not think it is necessary to refer to the full report. I will just reiterate the conclusion and recommendation by Ms Yeung. That is paragraph 22 of the report.
Authorities submitted by the prosecution At my request, the prosecution submitted 13 cases involving manslaughter for my consideration. I am grateful for the assistance rendered. However, I found most of the cases submitted do not help as the circumstances of killing were either different in nature or in severity, or both. HKSAR v Lau Bo Ki involved debt collecting and pouring large amount of sulphuric acid into the deceased’s flat, who died a prolonged and agonising death. HKSAR v Wong King Wai involved the killing of the deceased by striking her with a dumbbell and hitting her head against a glass pane. Attorney General v Wong Yim Ping and Another involved an employer who planned to obtain sexual gratification from his employee, the deceased. He was assisted by another employee and had applied chloroform to the deceased to stupefy her. More chloroform was used when the deceased did not lose consciousness completely. The employer sexually assaulted the deceased and videoed his act. After discovering the body of the deceased was cold, they failed to call for immediate medical assistance. The case of R v Chu Po Kwong involved the defendant being convicted of 12 counts of manslaughter. He brought cans of paint thinners and a lighter to the bank to confront the staff over his marital problem. The fire and smoke caused 12 deaths. The case of HKSAR v Pang Cho Yin and Another involved a sexual attack on a 15-year-old and the killing of her by suffocation. The case of HKSAR v Au Yeung Kin Kwok involving the killing of a friend who allegedly owed the accused money. The attack lasted for some 45 minutes. The case of HKSAR v Yik Po Man involved the killing of the accused’s cohabitee by stabbing him multiple times. The body was severely mutilated and covered in salt. The sentence for the preventing the lawful burial of the body was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence for manslaughter. The case of HKSAR v Li Sai On involved the killing of a mental patient in a rehabilitation centre by the accused who was the carer. The case of HKSAR v Lin Siu Lun involved the killing of a mentally retarded person by a gang who had assaulted the deceased on the instruction of the accused as the deceased owed the accused money. And the case of HKSAR v Lam Pui Fung involved the killing of a prostitute in a one-woman brothel when the accused robbed her and tried to silence her with towels. As for the following cases, although the circumstances of the killing are different from the present one, I am of the view that they are not too different in nature or in severity that I cannot take their sentence into consideration in deciding the sentence in the present case. The first one is the Secretary for Justice v Wan Hoi Ming. That involved the killing of the accused’s mother-in-law by suffocating her with a towel splashed with thinner when she refused to lend him $1 million. The accused owed millions of dollars and was pressed for repayment, so he acted under pressure. The trial judge sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. On review, the Court of Appeal increased the starting point to 10 years and the accused was eventually sentenced to 6 years and 2 months. The case of HKSAR v Tsang Siu Ching involved the accused going to break up an argument between the deceased and a co‑defendant. The accused grabbed the neck of the deceased tightly and threw him towards a cabinet. There was further fighting between them and the deceased was bumped against the wall and started to bleed. The deceased fell to the floor when the accused let go of him. The deceased was then put on the bed and the accused and the co-defendant went out for a meal. When they returned, they found the deceased dead. They disposed of the body by hiding it among the bushes near Anderson Road. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and preventing the lawful burial of a body, and he was sentenced to 3½ years for manslaughter and 1 year for the preventing charge, both sentences to run consecutively, and the Court of Appeal did not disturb the sentence. And the last one is HKSAR v Liu Qingyong. That involved the killing of the deceased during a homosexual activity by being suffocated with a pillow over his face and a towel was stuffed into his mouth. When the deceased appeared to breathe less and less, he was untied and attempts were made to resuscitate him without success. The accused was sentenced to 15 years for manslaughter. The Court of Appeal reduced it to 12 years. The authorities relied on by the defence The first one is HKSAR v Tsang Siu Ching, which I’ve already mentioned under the prosecution’s list. The second one is HKSAR v Tang Sau Ling. That involved the accused striking her husband on the head with a wooden baton several times as she believed she was protecting her 12‑year‑old son from being strangled. Despite heavy bleeding from the deceased, she only applied adhesive plasters. The deceased declined to be taken to the hospital when the accused offered to call an ambulance, and she took no further action. The deceased died overnight from blood loss. She was acquitted of murder and found guilty of manslaughter and was sentenced to 4 years. Mitigation Defence counsel placed strong emphasis on the psychologist’s report which brought an objective insight in the defendant’s conduct. In particular, the defendant tends to avoid problems and yields to pressure from the sworn sister and Ah Long when they force him to act violently towards the deceased. The submissive personality is a clinically identified vulnerability which made the defendant particularly susceptible to coercion. The oppressive conditions in the flat together with the defendant’s intellectual limitation, poor problem-solving abilities, low self-esteem and fear of conflict caused the defendant to perceive that he had no realistic alternative but to obey. Counsel stressed the offences were wholly out of character and the defendant required treatment and rehabilitation rather than prolonged incarceration beyond that required by punishment and deterrence. Counsel submitted the defendant is genuinely remorseful for what he had done and the risk of reoffending is low. Counsel submitted that due to the exceptional circumstances of this case, a custodial sentence of no more than 5 years to be imposed for the manslaughter charge and the sentence for preventing the lawful burial of a body should be ordered to run concurrently. Counsel also stressed that the defendant offered to plead guilty to manslaughter on the first day of trial and the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, so he is entitled to a one-quarter discount from the sentence, citing the well-known case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam. The defendant, his mother and elder brother and a number of friends who knew the defendant from his church, or the church he was attending at the time, all wrote to this Court asking for leniency. My consideration for the sentence A person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life and to pay such fine as the court may reward. There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of manslaughter. As I have already indicated earlier when I dealt with the authorities submitted, circumstances leading to the unlawful killing of a person varies and no two cases are identical. The best I can do is to look at the sentences imposed in some other cases so as to gauge the range of sentences applicable in this case. The circumstances of the killing in the present case are rather unusual. Though the cause of death was suffocation following head injuries and extensive cutaneous burns, by finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter, the jury must have found the defendant’s testimony that he did not cause the head injury or the burns to the deceased to be true, or may be true, otherwise it would be hard to see why the defendant was not found guilty of murder. On the facts found by the jury and on the detailed assessment and profiling of the defendant’s character by the psychologist, I agree this is a case in which the defendant needing more of a treatment and rehabilitation rather than prolonged incarceration, though I cannot ignore the fact that the defendant did kill the deceased which call for punishment. I accept the defendant is genuinely remorseful for what he had done and risk of reoffending is low. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a starting point of 5 years is appropriate in the case of the manslaughter offence. For the preventing the lawful burial of a body offence, I am of the view that a starting point of 12 months is proper. The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and to the 2nd count on the first day of trial. The prosecution rejected the defendant’s plea to manslaughter and the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. The defendant is therefore entitled to a quarter discount for both offences. As the killing was done when the defendant was trying to dispose of the body, I agree with the defence counsel that both sentences should run concurrently. So the 1st count of manslaughter, the sentence is 3 years and 9 months; the 2nd count, 9 months, both sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
|
