HKSAR v. Chau Henry and Another
|
HCCC 376/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 376 OF 2013 -----------------
-----------------
--------------------------------- Transcript of the Audio Recording --------------------------------- COURT: Mr Tse, you can stay seated, please. The person that you believed was your friend, that is Henry Chau, is a manipulative and extremely dangerous man and you had no idea of this when you were associating with him. He was kind to you, or appeared to be, and sometimes he was generous as well, and all the time he was just using you. You gave to the police in March of 2013 a full account in the course of five long interviews of how you were not involved in murder with Mr Chau. You followed that last year, 2014, by a very long account to a clinical psychologist, which was identical to your denials to the police. There was no material answer which was contradictory of anything you had said to the police and nor was there in this court this year when you spoke to the jury, but there was one interview, the final one - the seventh interview we have been calling it in this case - on 17 March 2013 when you were shown a two hour extract of an interview with Mr Chau and when you saw that, the person you had thought was your friend blaming you for the murder, you either lost your temper or you simply gave up for all the reasons the clinical psychologist suggested. You had had enough by that stage and you gave a very brief confession to the police. But the word “confession” should be put in inverted commas. Firstly, what needs to be understood is that Henry Chau is brilliant at blaming everyone but himself for his failings. He is a complete failure in life himself, but he never regarded it as his own fault; there was always someone else to blame. Furthermore, he has proved time and again how good he is at making up stories. He is a very good actor. Secondly, it is a very sad fact in your case that you have a low average intelligence and when you tried to commit suicide in 2010 it further damaged your health and your mental wellbeing. In fact, you were only saved from suicide by the unexpected return of your sister who got you into hospital just in time. The consequence of everything I have just mentioned is that you have been very naïve and gullible. Anyone who has listened to the evidence during this trial knows that you have been bullied and used by people all your life. Coming to this particular case, when you complained to Henry Chau that there was a dreadful smell coming from the room that he was renting in your flat and you found it unbearable, he showed you the cut up body parts he was keeping in boxes and it was no wonder you were in a terrible state. He had turned your flat into a house of utter horror and then he went on to trap you into helping him with the disposal of those parts. He did that by making you think that if you did not do so you could not escape conviction for murder because there the body parts were in your own flat and there was an implied threat to your mother’s life which you thought was a real one because he had a friend who you thought might harm your mother. It seems that you value your mother’s love above all else in this world and so it was that you were too frightened to go to the police. The reason you did not do so, sadly, is because of the low intelligence we have been told that you have and your concern for your mother’s safety. Mr Eddie Li, the clinical psychologist, gave very important evidence in this trial and I do not only accept what he said, I also accept what your sister, Phoebe, had to say about the very trusting nature of your personality. This jury has unanimously found you not guilty of murder, all nine of them, and I do not often make a comment about a jury’s verdict because it is not my place to do so, but if anyone suggests you were guilty of murder and got away with it, you just tell them that the judge also agreed with the verdict of the jury. I am absolutely in no doubt whatsoever that the verdict is correct. Of course, there was some evidence for the jury to consider and they have done so with the verdict you know about. Henry Chau has been using you all the time so that he could get your flat for his evil purpose. These were absolutely hideous crimes in which you had not taken a part until you were more or less forced to by getting rid of parts which he demanded that you should get rid of. To give full effect to the jury’s verdict, I am going to pass a sentence which will be one which involves your immediate release. I am told that Phoebe can be here quite quickly and that will be good if she can be. I am going to impose a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on each count, Counts 3 and 4. They are to be served concurrently. You have, in fact, already served it and so you will be able to leave today. Do you understand? 2ND DEFENDANT Yes. COURT: Now, if you go back with the -- is it better that he is released from the dock or has he got possessions downstairs? I think he has to check out downstairs. MS DRAYCOTT: It would be better if he... COURT: It is probably easier. MS DRAYCOTT: He would prefer to come out of the dock and we can collect his possessions from below. COURT: Later, yes. Well, I think he can do that. I am told it is easier if he checks out, but I think he can leave the dock if he wants to. I am just concerned that it might be easier from his personal point of view if he does go through the dock, because there are a lot of people who might want to speak to. MS DRAYCOTT: If he comes out now we can look after him. COURT: All right. Well, if he can be released -- we will just find out if that is possible. Yes, I think -- Ms Draycott, I think the answer is that it is easier if he goes out through the dock. There are forms which, I know the Correctional Services have to, to settle just before he is released, but it will only take minutes. MS DRAYCOTT: They are worried about his possessions which are downstairs. COURT: I know, they are all downstairs, yes. Let him get those. I think it is better he does it that way. MS DRAYCOTT: He can certainly leave from this building, which is the important thing. COURT: Yes, of course. Leaves here, yes. All right. Yes, he can go. Thank you very much. Thank you. That’s all. (Proceedings from 5.45 pm not required) Court adjourns - 5.50 pm 20 March 2015 23 March 2015 Court resumes - 2.29 pm Present: Mr Michael J B Arthur and Ms Jacqueline H Y Lam, on fiat, for HKSAR Mr Nicholas E W Adams, instructed by David Ravenscroft & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant Jury absent (Proceedings before 2.35 pm not required) COURT: Mr Chau, you speak English and so there is no need for interpretation. Stay seated please. The evidence on which you have been convicted demonstrates that you are a highly dangerous individual. You have a personality disorder with what was described as prominent, narcissistic and psychopathic features. In practice what this means is that you have no feelings for other people. Instead you were preoccupied with fantasies of success and with feelings of self-importance and it is an illustration of your emotional coldness that you have had not the slightest remorse for what you have done. You do not have an abnormality of mind arising from any disease of the mind, although you pretended that you had to two gullible psychiatrists. You planned these murders for six months and you carried them out with a clear mind and cold-blooded intent. Your parents had done all they could to give you a decent start in life and that included an overseas education. As usual, on 1 March 2013, they were prepared to help you in what they believed was a cleaning job of the flat that you told them you were going to move into. In reality you were just luring them to their death. People will say, “Why did you do this?” The fact that there is no obvious answer is what makes you so dangerous. There is considerable evidence that you have failed at almost evidence everything you have done in life except the piano. You have always blamed your failures on others, never yourself. There was even a complaint on your part that you had to learn the piano. Eventually, your parents became the victims of your blame. It appears that you saw your evil plan as some kind of revenge and even as a solution to your problems. It was the prosecution’s psychiatrist, Dr Lui, who said there are people who have no mental illness who can be very extreme. You require no medical treatment and you have had no medication since your arrest on 15 March 2013. You are only occupying a bed at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre because you were considered to be a possible suicide risk and also to provide added security for your co-defendant who was understandably terrified of you and what you are capable of doing. Whether you will ever be safe to release back into the community will be a matter for others to decide, but so that memories will not be allowed to fade many years from now, I am going to order that the psychiatric reports prepared by Dr S H Lui and Dr Bonnie W M Siu, together with a copy of the opening speech and a transcript of these sentencing remarks and Friday’s sentencing remarks as well, should be included in your prison file. This is so that no one can say in the future that they were not warned as to the likely danger you pose to the public. Your sentence on Counts 1 and 2 is that you go to prison for life on each count concurrently. On Counts 3 and 4, the maximum on each, as Mr Adam’s has correctly said, is 7 years’ imprisonment. If there was ever an example deserving of the maximum it is this case. You have pleaded guilty so that you are entitled to a full discount of a third. I shall impose a sentence on each count of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively, making 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment in all and those sentences are to be served concurrently with your life sentences. Thank you. He can go. (Proceedings from 2.41 pm not required) Court rises - 3.00 pm 23 March 2015 |