COURT: These tragic events happened on a day in June 2023 when, as we have all heard, the defendant went to Plaza Hollywood bought a knife, and after buying the knife, he walked around and saw the two victims in this case, and he claimed to the police that they were laughing at him, and which provoked him to take the knife and stabbed both of them very viciously because both victims suffered from injuries to their internal organs and had multiple defensive wounds which led to blood loss and respiratory failure, and they were pronounced dead very shortly after the stabbing.
A very brave chef from the Federal Banquet restaurant at Plaza Hollywood took two stools to run towards the defendant to stop him and very bravely hit the defendant with the stools to make him stop, and eventually he managed to stop the defendant near a directory board and guarded him until the police arrived. And I must commend the bravery of this chef who, without thinking of his own safety, ran out and stopped what the defendant was doing, and who knows if any other victim may have been injured had he not done so.
Police arrived shortly after and arrested the defendant. The ambulanceman then tried to keep the second deceased alive, and found that the first deceased had stopped breathing and there was no pulse, so they conveyed them to the United Christian Hospital, and unfortunately both deceased had died. The first deceased shortly after 6 pm, and the second deceased at 6.47 pm.
CCTV cameras in Plaza Hollywood captured the stabbings, and the autopsy report by the forensic pathologist confirmed that there were multiple stabbings on the first deceased, and there were in fact ten stab wounds apart from many others over the trunk of her body, and there were ten stab wounds on the front of the chest and abdomen, which penetrated the abdominal and chest cavities, and there were many defensive wounds as well.
And the forensic pathologist’s opinion was that the chest and abdomen wounds had penetrated the internal organs and major artery, causing blood loss and respiratory failure, and the defensive wounds on the upper limbs was consistent with the fact that the deceased was conscious at the time and was trying to ward off the weapon.
As far as the autopsy report of the second deceased was concerned, again there were multiple stab wounds all over her body, and again the important stab wounds were to the trunk, which entered the abdominal cavity and penetrated the lower right lobe of the liver. Again, there were very many defensive wounds, which was inflicted when the deceased was conscious and had attempted to ward off the weapon. So one can imagine the very horror that both deceased must have felt prior to their deaths.
The defendant was interviewed by the police on the video-recorded interview, and he admitted that he had bought the knife shortly after arriving at Plaza Hollywood, and he said he needed the knife to use the knife at home. However, he had unpacked the knife after buying it and walked around with the knife in Plaza Hollywood. He spotted both deceased in Sasa, and he claimed that they were laughing at him at the time. And having been thus provoked, he felt the urge to hit them, and that is when he then attacked both deceased.
He said he did not know either deceased beforehand, and he had not planned any attacks earlier that day. However, he also said that after buying the knife, he immediately unpacked the knife because he felt uncomfortable and unhappy. He felt it was very hot, and it made him feel irritated. And so when he saw both deceased, he felt provoked. He wanted to hit them and vent, and that is why he hit them.
And it is unfortunate also that the defendant in his young age had not had an easy life. He was adjudicated bankrupt in 2019. He was unemployed since 2012 and was on CSSA. And the medical records show that he had first become an outpatient at the Wu York Yu General Outpatient Clinic in Tsz Wan Shan on 16 March 2020, when he complained of stress. And he was finally seen in the psychiatric centre in Kwai Chung Hospital, and he was 40 years old at the time.
And thus he was known to the psychiatric services since May 2020, when he was remanded to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for psychiatric reports because he was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his elder brother with a chopper. He was at that time diagnosed with psychosis and was put under the special care status in September 2020 in view of his violent history. He was sentenced to 2 months’ hospital order for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his brother and possession of an offensive weapon and he was diagnosed at that time with paranoid schizophrenia.
And so he was put under special care status eventually after his discharge. But he attempted to arrange for a termination of his conditional discharge, which luckily failed.
And he was eventually found on follow-up consultations at the East Kowloon Psychiatric Centre to be mentally stable. And he was last visited by a community psychiatric nurse at his home on 29 May, and the nurse did not observe any abnormalities on the defendant.
And when the defendant was interviewed by three psychiatrists after these attacks, in September 2024, Dr Cheung Hung-Kin had opined that his killing of the victims was because he was labouring under the influence of paranoid delusion and abnormal mood state as a result of an acute relapse of his schizophrenic illness.
Dr Dorothy Tang, in February 2025, was of the opinion he suffered from an abnormality of mind arising from his paranoid schizophrenia which impaired his ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control.
And Dr S H Lui, consultant psychiatrist at Siu Lam, also gave his opinion in June 2025 that he was suffering from his paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offences.
So having considered all this report, it was wise of the prosecution to accept the plea to manslaughter by diminished responsibility in full and final settlement of the murder charges.
It is unfortunate and tragic that both deceased, out on an innocent shopping expedition in the shopping mall, should meet with such a painful end to their young lives. And I can appreciate the trauma suffered by the family, most importantly by the mothers of both young ladies. It is a fact that in the victim impact report, both mothers are at the moment not ready to accept any psychological counselling.
Although the psychiatrist, the clinical psychologist who interviewed them, believes that psychological counselling would help them get over this trauma, and the mother of the first deceased is not willing at this time to accept any help. And also the mother of the second deceased is said by the clinical psychologist to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. And she said she didn’t want to have this treatment because she says that she feared that the treatment would take away her pain, and I am quoting the report:
“...would take away her pain, which she perceives as her only remaining connection with her deceased daughter.”
And all I can say is that I respect what they think, but I would ask them to reconsider that feeling the pain is not the only way to remember their daughters, because what they should remember their daughters are the happy occasions, not the pain. So I would ask and in fact recommend to them to reconsider if they can seek help to alleviate their distress. I know that any sentence for a crime of this nature will not ever satisfy the distressed families, and I appreciate that.
I have read the updated psychiatric reports of two psychiatrists. Dr Tang on 17 August this year is of the opinion that because of the defendant’s still ongoing mental condition, his insight into his mental illness still remains limited, that she strongly recommends a hospital order for an unspecified period in order to protect himself and also to protect the community.
There is also the psychiatric report of Dr Lui who states in clear language that the defendant is still suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. And he says, and I quote:
“There is no telling what is hidden in his mind and what he may do outside of a highly secured environment. A hospital order is essential.”
And he recommended that if the court sees fit to commit the defendant to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for an unspecified period.
And I have read also Mr Boyton’s mitigation. He has said everything he could possibly say in the circumstances on his behalf, and of course, the court has many available ways to punish the defendant. However, in view of the psychiatric reports, I am also of the same opinion as the psychiatrist that a hospital order for an unspecified period is the only fit sentence to pronounce.
And so I sentence the defendant to an indefinite period of hospital order.
