CRIMINAL CASE NO. 99 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter.
The deceased was his father, living under the same roof. The defendant made a 999 call in the morning, reporting that his father had collapsed at home. No pulse or signs of respiration were found upon arrival of the ambulance men. His father was subsequently certified dead in the hospital.
According to the defendant, he had an argument with the deceased the night before, during which he pushed the deceased twice, and the second push caused the deceased to fall backwards and knock his head against a hard object at the bunk bed, resulting in laceration and bleeding on the head.
The defendant said that he had helped the deceased to stop bleeding, and then went out to work. He was scared, and did not ask for assistance from either the police or the hospital, although upon his return, the deceased had complained of discomfort.
It was not until that morning that he found the deceased unresponsive and made a report to the police.
The defendant, now aged 29, has a clear record, with no history of violence. I have perused the probation, psychiatric and psychologist’s reports. The reports reveal that the defendant was around 6 years old when his parents separated, and he was entrusted to the care of his mother’s friend. He moved back to live with the deceased when he was in his teens, but the relationship between them remained distant and aloof.
Whilst he had maintained a stable working pattern since the age of 18, he incurred a large amount of debt due to his lavish spending when he first joined the workforce. Prior to the present offence, he worked as a delivery worker in the day and as a part-time cleaning worker at night, trying to make ends meet and repay his debt, with very little money to spend.
Counsel told me that the defendant had no vice habit and had made regular contribution to the deceased, although the deceased frequently complained about the insufficiency of such.
The defendant’s mother and cousin both spoke of him as a mild and gentle-natured person. They believe the present incident was an accident which arose from the defendant’s sudden and impulsive outburst of anger.
By way of mitigation, counsel submitted that the defendant never intended to kill his father and did not foresee that the push would cause any serious injury. He now regrets that he had underestimated the seriousness of the injuries, and blames himself for not calling for medical assistance earlier which could have saved his father’s life.
The contents of the clinical psychologist’s report is markedly different from the other two reports. In particular, the psychologist opined the remorse of the defendant to be superficial, and the defendant might have other, underlying mental or psychiatric problems. This latter contention is not supported by the psychiatrist, who found no psychotic symptoms on the defendant at all.
Insofar as the psychologist’s report differs from the other two reports, I am prepared to give those parts very little weight when assessing sentence.
Counsel for the defendant in mitigation relied on a string of English authorities which suggest where death resulted from a single blow or punch and the deceased losing balance and knocked his head against hard objects, a 2-year imprisonment for a manslaughter charge would be appropriate.
The Court of Appeal in the case of Lo Bing Sun CACC660/1993 commented:
“The situation in Hong Kong is very different from that of England, as people here lived in a very crowded and tense environment, and the unlawful and dangerous acts constituted even by a single blow or push need to be deterred.”
Further, the court in the case of Tsang Siu Ching (2001) HKLRD 522 has stressed that:
“No attempt to call for medical assistance after the blow is an aggravating feature.”
In that case, the pathologist was of the opinion that if there had been an early call for medical assistance, the deceased might well have lived.
In the present case, one of the forensic pathologists was of the view that timely medical treatment is one of the factors which might affect survival of the deceased.
I have taken into account all the features of the present case, including father and son relationship, defendant’s stable work pattern, that the incident resulted from a momentary impulsive push by the defendant, failure to call for medical assistance, defendant’s remorse, as manifested in his early intention to plead guilty, and his guilty plea. I have also perused letters of mitigation submitted to this court.
Defendant, all that could have been said on your behalf has been advanced by your counsel. No doubt this is a tragedy. Defendant, your father has lost his life, and you have lost your father. For having caused his death, the price you have to pay is your freedom.
Taking into account all features of the present case, I am of the view that a sentence of 4 years is appropriate, and this is the sentence that I pass.