COURT: This defendant, who is aged 38, was the girlfriend of the victim, Wong Hoi-shing. The couple lived together and moved to the defendant’s flat in December of 2009. In February 2011, the victim discovered that the defendant was 11 years older than he was when he had been led to believe that she was one year younger and he decided to leave the defendant.
On 2 September 2011, the victim went to the defendant’s flat in the evening and the defendant returned to the flat later that night. The victim went to sleep. At about noon on 3 September 2011, the defendant prepared lunch for the victim and gave him three tablets of leftover vitamins. He took the meal and the tablets and, after about 15 minutes, he went to sleep, using a black checked scarf to cover his eyes.
While he was sleeping, he felt pain on his cheek. He opened his eyes and saw the defendant holding a running electric chainsaw with which she cut his left cheek and left neck. He warded off the chainsaw but some strong liquid was thrown at his face. He then recalled that he was hit on the head and lost his memory of what happened afterwards.
The caretaker and the CCTV recordings in the building showed that at about 1400 hours on that day, he went down to the guard post, covered in blood, to seek help.
The police arrived at about 1438 hours but the defendant refused to open the door to them. At about 1500 hours, she suddenly came out of the flat. Her hair was wet and she appeared to be injured. She received first aid and told the police that while she was sleeping, her boyfriend, that is the victim, had attacked her with an axe. She grabbed the axe and the victim fled. Police arrested the defendant for wounding.
Police seized various exhibits at the defendant’s flat:
a bloodstained electric chainsaw to which was stuck the victim’s black checked scarf. The cutting chain had been partly derailed from the guide bar;
in the shower room, there was found one long axe and one shorter axe, each with a wooden handle;
there was a bloodstained mop near the water basin. The tap of the water basin was still running at the time the police entered the flat;
a pair of yellow plastic gloves with bloodstains was found in a litterbin inside the toilet;
a pair of pink plastic gloves with bloodstains was found at the bedroom;
in the kitchen, a glass beer bottle containing some liquid which was labelled “Floor cleanser, 31% hydrochloric acid” was found.
The victim was sent to Queen Mary Hospital and a number of injuries were found, the most serious of which were as follows:
(1) a curved laceration of about 10 centimetres long from the outer corner of the left eyebrow down to the left cheekbone and then back to the upper part of the left ear (part of that laceration required sutures);
(2) a laceration on the left cheek of about 12 centimetres long, running from the left cheek area to the left corner of the mouth. This went through the muscle into the oral cavity, dividing the parotid gland and branches of the left facial nerve. Again, this required suturing;
(3) a laceration of about 10 centimetres long across the left front of the neck (most of this laceration required suturing);
(4) there were various cut wounds at the forehead and wounds on the head;
(5) there was a wound of about 2.5 centimetres long at the corner of the left eyebrow, which required fine suturing;
(6) there were cuts below the left eye and on the upper lip;
(7) there was a wound about 2 centimetres long on the left chin;
(8) there was a small scab on the left jaw;
(9) there were three parallel abrasions on the left shoulder;
(10) there were wounds of about 1 centimetre long and 2 centimetres long on the left shoulder (both required suturing);
(11) there were linear abrasions on the left collarbone;
(12) there was a lens-shaped injury on the right forearm that was about 4 centimetres in maximal dimension;
(13) there was a chemical burn to his left eye with impairment of visual acuity; and
(14) a wound on the right index finger with a tendon rupture and ulnar digital nerve injury.
The victim stayed 12 days in the hospital. He was seen by a clinical psychologist during his stay in the hospital but he said he did not consider that outpatient follow-up was necessary after he was discharged.
The victim has lost over 95 per cent vision of his left eye. He can sense light but no images. His tears and eye secretions are not controllable. His left cheek muscles are immobile. The inner side of his right thumb remained numb, but mobility had been restored to 90 per cent.
The defendant herself was sent to Queen Mary Hospital and the following injuries were noted:
(1) a 4 centimetre chop wound on the right vertex of her head;
(2) three small linear red bruises on the right side of her anterior neck;
(3) a light red bruise mark was found on the left side of her anterior neck;
(4) a 3 centimetre chop wound was found on her left arm;
(5) an 8 centimetre superficial cut wound was found on her right upper thigh;
(6) there was a bruise and swelling over her right thumb and right wrist; and
(7) a red bruise on both sides of her lower posterior chest wall.
She stayed in hospital between 3 and 7 September 2011. There is no satisfactory indication as to how these wounds were caused but I note that a number of them could have been self-inflicted.
Police were able to confirm that the defendant had gone to a hardware shop in Wanchai on 3 September 2011 at about 10 am. There she bought the chainsaw, the two axes, an extension socket, protective goggles, lubricating oil for the chainsaw and floor cleanser comprising hydrochloric acid.
The owner of the store subsequently identified the defendant at an identification parade. He claimed that the defendant had also asked for chloroform but he did not have any available for sale. The shop owner assisted the defendant to hire a van. The defendant alighted from the van at one point during the journey, claiming that she was unwell and needed to buy painkillers. The driver of the van described the defendant’s behaviour as “strange”.
A DNA examination showed that most of the exhibits seized from the flat, particularly those from the bedroom, were stained with the victim’s blood and the bloodstains were only confined to the lower region of the bedroom. This suggested that the victim was lying on the bed when he was attacked. In addition, the electric chainsaw and the two axes were stained with the victim’s blood.
The glass bottle seized at the scene was found to contain 10 mls of hydrochloric acid with a concentration of 27 per cent. The chemical burn to the victim’s left eye was consistent with an injury caused by hydrochloric acid at that concentration.
The laceration injuries were consistent with the use of a chainsaw. Some of the cut wounds were consistent with those caused by an axe. Some wounds were caused by scraping of the skin by sharp points. The victim’s thumb was injured and was consistent with a defensive injury sustained while trying to grab the offending instrument.
The blood of both the victim and the defendant was found on the mop and the outside of the two pairs of plastic gloves. Two axes were found at the shower and the toilet when they were seized. One axe was about 4 foot long, the other was about 12 inches. The police said that when the door of the flat was opened by the defendant, her hair was wet.
The circumstantial evidence supports the victim’s version that the defendant was the assailant.
The defendant admitted that she wounded the victim intending to maim, disfigure or disable him.
In mitigation, the court was advised that the defendant had a clear record. She was born on 13 June 1972. She was educated up to form 3 level in Hong Kong. She worked as a saleslady from 1986 to 1992 and thereafter as an insurance agent until 2007. After that, she worked as a property manager from 2007 up to the date of this offence.
I was advised that the defendant was the second of four sisters. Her parents divorced in 2006. The father has had a stroke and needs 24-hour care in a nursing home. The defendant had visited him on occasions before her arrest. Her mother has cardiovascular problems.
The defendant married in 1992 and divorced in 1995. Her 15-year-old son lives with her ex-husband and previously, on occasions, she would visit him and cook him meals. She also attended his school activities. After her marriage ended, the defendant had a number of relationships, all of which ended unhappily, and she inflicted harm on herself by making a number of suicide attempts.
In 2004 she entered a psychiatric hospital for the first time and was hospitalised on a number of occasions after that. At that time, she was diagnosed with depression. She did not visit the Outpatient Department regularly and her last visit was a few months before this offence.
In 2007, she joined a property management business which was run by her older sister and it was there, in June 2009, that she met the victim who was working as a security guard. They began a relationship and later cohabited in the defendant’s flat.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the relationship was initially good but the defendant alleged she found that the victim had been chatting with girls on the internet. Occasionally he would bring girls home for sex at the flat and on occasions asked the defendant to join in. The defendant did join in at times - although she was unwilling to participate - because she did not want to disappoint the victim and wanted to keep the relationship going. The victim’s conduct affected the relationship and contributed to the defendant’s unstable emotional state. It was alleged that on the day before this offence, the victim had brought home a woman for sex and asked the defendant to join in. She found this behaviour disgusting and unacceptable.
Counsel accepted that the attack by the defendant was vicious, brutal and premeditated. He pointed out as explanatory circumstances the cohabitation relationship which caused the defendant great stress. She had a history of depression. She had given no indication of previous violence, nor in her earlier unhappy relationships was there any indication that she had attacked her partners. According to the defendant’s counsel, she was remorseful and highly unlikely to offend again. The defendant apologised to the victim for the harm she had caused him.
Counsel submitted that the defendant had acted out of character; that she had developed some insight into her emotional problems and advised the court that she had become a Christian in December 2012.
As for the consequences to the victim, counsel submitted that the wounds had healed and that although the eyesight of the victim’s left eye had been lost, an ocular prosthesis would be implanted which at least would improve the cosmetic appearance of the victim. The victim had said he had taken less part in social life since this offence because of his damaged appearance. The victim had declined the offer of psychological counselling after he was discharged from hospital.
Given the nature of the case and the defendant’s alleged psychiatric condition, I considered it desirable to have a background report and a psychologist’s report before sentencing. The background report examines the defendant’s life with her maiden family, her short-lived marriage, her work history, her psychiatric problems, her unhappy relationships with men after her marriage broke up and her relationship with the victim.
She told the officer who interviewed her that the relationship with the victim began when they met through work. All went well for about six months but the victim, who was by then cohabiting with the Accused, allegedly began surfing porn websites and chatting with girls on the web camera. Eventually, he invited the girls back to the flat for sex.
I note here that there was no reference to this alleged sexual misbehaviour in the Video Interview, nor in the Summary of Facts that was put before the court.
The victim was fired from his job as a security guard because of his poor work ethic. Family members reported that, after that, the victim relied on the defendant to support him financially. The defendant’s own work aptitude was considered outstanding - although I note in that context that it was her sister who was the general manager of the company where the defendant was employed, so the praise for her work aptitude must be read in that light.
The defendant received treatment for depression on a number of occasions after 2002 because of various unhappy relationships. She acknowledged her wrongdoing in respect of the offence and admitted that she should have sought help from her psychiatrist, or her sisters. She regretted the physical harm she had done to the victim.
The psychologist’s report was done to assess the intellectual functioning of the defendant, to assess her emotional state and to assess the risk of her possible re-offending. She was interviewed twice in 2011 and three times in 2013 by the psychologist.
Her psychosocial background described the difficult relationship she had had as a child with her father and paternal grandmother. This resulted in attention-seeking behaviour which, in turn, was punished. She married at 20. She had conflict with her in-laws and also her husband and this resulted in a divorce. Her husband was given custody of the son. However, thereafter, she made frequent visits to the son.
She had worked from the age of 16 to the time of her marriage at the age of 20. She returned to work and was in stable employment at the time of the incident. She had a good relationship with her maiden family at the date of this offence.
In terms of her psychiatric history, she had been under treatment effectively since 2003. She had been given medication for her depression, but she was not particularly compliant with the instructions to take the tablets. She has now been assessed, since October 2011, as having a “borderline personality disorder” and she has been drug compliant while she has been in the Centre.
In respect of the offence, she told the psychiatrist that she had an unhappy relationship with the victim. She repeated the allegations of the victim bringing women back to the flat. She said it made her very angry; it led to the four incidents of self-harm. She said she had concealed her correct age and the existence of her son from the victim. When the victim discovered that, he wanted a separation but agreed to stay with her until after her birthday on 13 September 2011.
The triggering incident, according to the defendant, was the alleged incident where the victim brought a girl home on 2 September 2011, the night before the offence was committed. She was very angry and sad about this. She bought items on 3 September 2011,chainsaw, the axes, the hydrochloric acid, etc. She told the psychiatrist that she had bought these for work-related purposes. However, through her counsel, she has confirmed that she bought these as tools to attack the victim.
She admitted using the chainsaw to hit him. She claimed the victim fought back. She said she had splashed acid when the victim chased her and, according to her, he dragged her to the toilet and while he was washing off the acid, she lost consciousness.
I notice that there were some differences in the defendant’s account of the attack to the psychologist and the account given in the Summary of Facts, which militates slightly against her claim to be remorseful. She denied any intent to kill and she denied, according to the psychologist, that she had bought the items to hurt the victim. However, it appears from what counsel said in mitigation, that she believes that that was misreported, that she did have the intention to hurt him, to teach him a lesson but that it was not a longstanding intention, it was one that had arisen overnight on 2 and 3 September 2011.
The psychologist noted the defendant has an intense fear of separation and abandonment. She resorted to self-harm if she had relationship problems. She was unhappy with the victim, but felt that she herself was a victim and she resorted to violence to handle her relationship problems.
The psychologist said that the combination of borderline personality disorder, her clear record and her stable employment means that the risk of her re-offending was low to moderate and the recommendation made by the psychologist was that there should be some psychological intervention on mood management and handling of relationship stress. The psychologist noted that treatment motivation tended to be low if the defendant was kept in the community.
A number of letters were produced to the court as part of the mitigation. The defendant herself explained her unhappy relationship and sought leniency so that she could resume her maternal and filial responsibilities. Her ex-husband wrote, confirming that despite the failure of their marriage, she was a good mother and took care of their son. Her son described a close relationship with his mother and told the court that he felt abandoned because she was in prison; he sought leniency for her.
The defendant’s mother referred to her daughter’s problems with depression and consequential suicide attempts; she confirmed that the defendant had full family support and asked for leniency.
The defendant’s younger sister, the third daughter, was the confidante of the defendant throughout her problems. It was she who had to deal with the aftermath of the various suicide attempts in an effort to keep her family from knowing about them. On one occasion, she said the defendant had badly burned hands because she fainted and fell into the charcoal that she was burning in order to kill herself. The defendant, as a result, had to have many skin grafts to restore the burned hands.
The Reverend Ching Ka-wao of the Chinese Christian Pastoral Association met the defendant in prison and was aware of her conversion. He considered her remorseful and believed she had gained insight into her problems. He believed she made efforts to reform, with a view to rejoining the community after her prison term.
Pastor Lee Moi-yun of the Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association is a volunteer CSD Chaplain. He believed the defendant was overly reliant on the victim and that she had agreed to his unreasonable demands to keep the relationship alive. He too sought the court’s sympathy and leniency.
A former principal of the Wong Chuk Hang Catholic Primary School, once attended by the defendant, sought leniency because the defendant was remorseful and had been affected by a mood disorder at the time of the offence. She herself had been at the school when the defendant was a pupil and had kept contact with her since that time.
This was a very serious assault with grave consequences for the victim. It was, without question, a premeditated offence. The defendant went to a hardware store, purchased two axes, one large and one small, a chainsaw and the hydrochloric acid with which she later blinded the victim. She waited until the victim was asleep and then launched her attack.
The victim awoke to find the defendant holding the running chainsaw. When he tried to escape from that, he was attacked with the acid and then he was hit on the head, probably by one of the axes. It was not known clearly how he managed to escape from the flat, but it was very fortunate for the victim that he was not killed by the chainsaw.
The most serious permanent damage was the loss of the sight of his left eye. Other problems would be likely to arise in the future for the victim because, cosmetically, his appearance would be rendered less attractive given the likely nature and position of the permanent scarring. Such scarring could certainly lessen his chances of obtaining employment in future.
The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. Given the determined nature of the attack, I did consider that as a possibility. I was referred to a number of cases which are said to be relevant for sentence, at least in terms of general principles. The range of sentence is 3 to 12 years. I considered the case of Wong Yuk Yee CACC 205/2012.
First, at the time the defendant carried out her attack, she was in an emotional state and was depressed because of the relationship, in particular by the victim’s threat to leave her. I accept counsel’s submissions that it is unlikely that the defendant will commit a similar offence in future. Be that as it may, this offence was very serious, particularly because of the nature of the preparation and the three types of weapon that were employed. The victim suffers lasting consequences as a result of this attack.
The court in Wong Yuk Yee CACC 205/2012 considered the facts in that case were close to the cases of Chiu Siu Mei HCCC 443/2010 and Wong Sau Lai CACC 283/2000 where the starting points were 6 and 7 years respectively. The Court of Appeal noted that in all those cases, the defendants were suffering from severe stress which they felt was caused by the behaviour of their husbands.
In the instant case, the defendant was under stress because of the behaviour of the victim. As in those cases, the attack was premeditated. As in those cases, this attack took place while the victim was asleep. In all three cases, eyesight was damaged.
In Chau Wan Fun CAAR 1/2006 it was held that it is a cardinal principle in sentencing these cases that the court should take into account the consequences to the victim in considering the gravity of the offence and the appropriate sentence. In addition - and I regard this as important - the courts should not be deflected from their duty of imposing sentences appropriate to the gravity of the offence in crimes of violence committed against a domestic background.
This case was committed against a domestic background. However I consider it differs from other comparable cases because of the serious nature of the attack and the multiplicity of weapons that were used. Taking into account the premeditation, the nature of the injury, the permanent loss of the victim, I am of the view that starting point for sentence should be passed at the top end of the scale.
I take a starting point of 11 years. I give the defendant a
one-third discount for her plea of guilty and I sentence her to 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.