A A
DCCC 998/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 998 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Luk Wai-nang
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge Woodcock
Date: 30 January 2013 at 10.31 am
H Present: Mr Sharman Lam, SPP of the Department of Justice, for H
HKSAR
Mr Cheung Kin-bor, Michael, instructed by Li, Wong,
I Lam & W I Cheung, assigned by the Director of Legal I
Aid, for the defendant
J Offence: (1) Possession of offensive weapon (管有攻擊性武器) J
(3) Throwing corrosive fluid with intent (有意圖而淋潑腐
蝕性液體)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. Defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 1, possession
of an offensive weapon, contrary to section 17 of the Summary
O O
Offences Ordinance, Cap 228; and Charge 3, throwing corrosive
P fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences P
Against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.
Q Q
2. The facts are as follows. The defendant lived on the
R R
16th floor of Shek Wing House, Shek Lei II Estate, Kwai Chung.
He was living there with his wife and daughters but they moved
S S
to a shelter on 7 July last year to avoid the defendant’s temper
T and threatening behaviour towards them. T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 1 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
3. Some days later, on 22 July, in the evening, the
management office of that building, of that house received a
B B
complaint about the defendant’s behaviour and noise on the
C 16th floor. Upon arrival on the 16th floor, a security guard C
discovered two dustbins had been tipped over and the rubbish
D spread over the floor. There was a group of neighbours standing D
in the corridor.
E E
4. Security guard saw the defendant come out of his home
F F
with a glass bottle and a hammer which scared all those
G neighbours surrounding him. He then behaved rather oddly, G
swearing and shouting, leading the management company to call
H the police. H
I I
5. Not long after, five police officers arrived and
knocked on the defendant’s door, asking him to come out, but he
J J
refused. After some time, when the police kept knocking, the
K
defendant suddenly opened the door. He was holding a knife and K
pointing it towards the police, threatening to chop them if they
L did not leave. He also pointed it towards himself, threatening L
to kill himself if the police did not leave. He then retreated
M back into his home. M
N N
6. Not long after, the police heard a loud bang and was
worried that he had hurt himself. When there was no response to
O O
their knocking, the police tried to force open the gate and ram
P open his wooden door. All of a sudden, the defendant opened his P
door and splashed some liquid towards the police officers. He
Q then threw out a white plastic bottle marked with “Potent Toilet Q
Cleaning Liquid.” After the liquid had been thrown at the
R R
officers, one officer felt a burning sensation over his right
face, right eye and both forearms. He immediately sought medical
S S
help and was sent to hospital.
T T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 2 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
7. The defendant was eventually persuaded to come out of
his premises and after he was arrested, he was taken to hospital
B B
for medical treatment.
C C
8. There is no dispute that the liquid that was left in
D the bottle after testing was determined to be a liquid D
containing hydrochloric acid having a concentration of
E E
31 per cent weight by weight. This is not a liquid with very
strong hydrochloric acid but it is corrosive and capable of
F F
causing burn to skin and damages to eyes.
G G
9. The defendant did later make a full admission to the
H police under caution. He admitted he splashed the liquid towards H
the police and threw the bottle that had contained the liquid at
I I
the police because he was angry with the police.
J J
10. Luckily, the police officer who was splashed did not
K
suffer any serious or permanent injury, but I cannot ignore the K
fact that he could potentially have suffered serious injury.
L L
11. The defendant is 52 years old, presently married with
M three daughters ranging between the ages of 16 and 24. The M
defendant is not a man of clear record. He has many previous
N N
convictions. From the reports I have obtained and his criminal
record, he has had a drug problem that began as early as in the
O O
early 1990s. He has previous convictions that involved violence
P as well as violence towards police officers. P
Q 12. From the two psychiatric reports I called for, it is Q
clear that he has been known to the mental health services since
R R
2004, and at that time he was diagnosed with having a heroin
dependence syndrome, and his mental health clearly has
S S
deteriorated over the years so much so that his wife and
T children find his behaviour insufferable and have had to move T
out.
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 3 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
13. I see from the background report and the interview
with the defendant’s wife, she has now instituted divorce
B B
proceedings.
C C
14. After the offence, he was admitted into Kwai Chung
D Hospital and then remanded at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. He has D
been diagnosed with suffering from schizophrenia and has been
E E
taking prescribed medication. He is now showing improvement and
his mental condition is stable, and because of this improvement,
F F
both psychiatrists do not find it necessary to consider an
G in-patient treatment but recommend he continue psychiatric G
outpatient treatment.
H H
15. Defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.
I I
There are no guidelines for these two offences. Sentence will be
very case-specific, and I accept that at the time of the offence
J J
he was affected by his mental psychosis, but he admits that he
K
knew what he was doing. I have considered the background report K
submitted and the two medical reports put forward, and defence
L counsel has mitigated to the best of his ability with the facts L
he has before him. I also take into account it was not a
M premeditated attack. Under an emotional cloud, the defendant got M
angry and picked up a drain cleaner to throw at the police.
N N
16. Having said that, the police were clearly his target
O O
and the police were only doing their duty and do deserve
P protection. P
Q 17. I will also take into account the strength of the Q
drain cleaner was not very strong and, luckily, the police
R R
officer has not suffered permanent injury. The third offence in
particular is very serious and must be deterred. A term of
S S
imprisonment is inevitable.
T T
18. After careful consideration of all the facts, the
U defendant’s background, the psychiatric reports, his plea and U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 4 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
mitigation put forward, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of
15 months’ imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is
B B
entitled to a discount of 5 months for his plea. Defendant for
C Charge 1 is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. C
D 19. For Charge 3, I take a starting point of 3 years’ D
imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled
E E
to a discount of 1 year for his plea. For Charge 3, the
defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
F F
G 20. Both charges arise from the same incident, and I order G
that both charges be served concurrently. That would mean a
H total of 2 years’ imprisonment. H
I I
21. Defendant is to continue to receive psychiatric
treatment whilst serving the sentence.
J J
K K
L L
A. J. Woodcock
M District Judge M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 5 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC 998/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 998 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Luk Wai-nang
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge Woodcock
Date: 30 January 2013 at 10.31 am
H Present: Mr Sharman Lam, SPP of the Department of Justice, for H
HKSAR
Mr Cheung Kin-bor, Michael, instructed by Li, Wong,
I Lam & W I Cheung, assigned by the Director of Legal I
Aid, for the defendant
J Offence: (1) Possession of offensive weapon (管有攻擊性武器) J
(3) Throwing corrosive fluid with intent (有意圖而淋潑腐
蝕性液體)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. Defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 1, possession
of an offensive weapon, contrary to section 17 of the Summary
O O
Offences Ordinance, Cap 228; and Charge 3, throwing corrosive
P fluid with intent, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences P
Against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.
Q Q
2. The facts are as follows. The defendant lived on the
R R
16th floor of Shek Wing House, Shek Lei II Estate, Kwai Chung.
He was living there with his wife and daughters but they moved
S S
to a shelter on 7 July last year to avoid the defendant’s temper
T and threatening behaviour towards them. T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 1 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
3. Some days later, on 22 July, in the evening, the
management office of that building, of that house received a
B B
complaint about the defendant’s behaviour and noise on the
C 16th floor. Upon arrival on the 16th floor, a security guard C
discovered two dustbins had been tipped over and the rubbish
D spread over the floor. There was a group of neighbours standing D
in the corridor.
E E
4. Security guard saw the defendant come out of his home
F F
with a glass bottle and a hammer which scared all those
G neighbours surrounding him. He then behaved rather oddly, G
swearing and shouting, leading the management company to call
H the police. H
I I
5. Not long after, five police officers arrived and
knocked on the defendant’s door, asking him to come out, but he
J J
refused. After some time, when the police kept knocking, the
K
defendant suddenly opened the door. He was holding a knife and K
pointing it towards the police, threatening to chop them if they
L did not leave. He also pointed it towards himself, threatening L
to kill himself if the police did not leave. He then retreated
M back into his home. M
N N
6. Not long after, the police heard a loud bang and was
worried that he had hurt himself. When there was no response to
O O
their knocking, the police tried to force open the gate and ram
P open his wooden door. All of a sudden, the defendant opened his P
door and splashed some liquid towards the police officers. He
Q then threw out a white plastic bottle marked with “Potent Toilet Q
Cleaning Liquid.” After the liquid had been thrown at the
R R
officers, one officer felt a burning sensation over his right
face, right eye and both forearms. He immediately sought medical
S S
help and was sent to hospital.
T T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 2 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
7. The defendant was eventually persuaded to come out of
his premises and after he was arrested, he was taken to hospital
B B
for medical treatment.
C C
8. There is no dispute that the liquid that was left in
D the bottle after testing was determined to be a liquid D
containing hydrochloric acid having a concentration of
E E
31 per cent weight by weight. This is not a liquid with very
strong hydrochloric acid but it is corrosive and capable of
F F
causing burn to skin and damages to eyes.
G G
9. The defendant did later make a full admission to the
H police under caution. He admitted he splashed the liquid towards H
the police and threw the bottle that had contained the liquid at
I I
the police because he was angry with the police.
J J
10. Luckily, the police officer who was splashed did not
K
suffer any serious or permanent injury, but I cannot ignore the K
fact that he could potentially have suffered serious injury.
L L
11. The defendant is 52 years old, presently married with
M three daughters ranging between the ages of 16 and 24. The M
defendant is not a man of clear record. He has many previous
N N
convictions. From the reports I have obtained and his criminal
record, he has had a drug problem that began as early as in the
O O
early 1990s. He has previous convictions that involved violence
P as well as violence towards police officers. P
Q 12. From the two psychiatric reports I called for, it is Q
clear that he has been known to the mental health services since
R R
2004, and at that time he was diagnosed with having a heroin
dependence syndrome, and his mental health clearly has
S S
deteriorated over the years so much so that his wife and
T children find his behaviour insufferable and have had to move T
out.
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 3 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
13. I see from the background report and the interview
with the defendant’s wife, she has now instituted divorce
B B
proceedings.
C C
14. After the offence, he was admitted into Kwai Chung
D Hospital and then remanded at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. He has D
been diagnosed with suffering from schizophrenia and has been
E E
taking prescribed medication. He is now showing improvement and
his mental condition is stable, and because of this improvement,
F F
both psychiatrists do not find it necessary to consider an
G in-patient treatment but recommend he continue psychiatric G
outpatient treatment.
H H
15. Defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.
I I
There are no guidelines for these two offences. Sentence will be
very case-specific, and I accept that at the time of the offence
J J
he was affected by his mental psychosis, but he admits that he
K
knew what he was doing. I have considered the background report K
submitted and the two medical reports put forward, and defence
L counsel has mitigated to the best of his ability with the facts L
he has before him. I also take into account it was not a
M premeditated attack. Under an emotional cloud, the defendant got M
angry and picked up a drain cleaner to throw at the police.
N N
16. Having said that, the police were clearly his target
O O
and the police were only doing their duty and do deserve
P protection. P
Q 17. I will also take into account the strength of the Q
drain cleaner was not very strong and, luckily, the police
R R
officer has not suffered permanent injury. The third offence in
particular is very serious and must be deterred. A term of
S S
imprisonment is inevitable.
T T
18. After careful consideration of all the facts, the
U defendant’s background, the psychiatric reports, his plea and U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 4 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
mitigation put forward, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of
15 months’ imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is
B B
entitled to a discount of 5 months for his plea. Defendant for
C Charge 1 is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. C
D 19. For Charge 3, I take a starting point of 3 years’ D
imprisonment. The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled
E E
to a discount of 1 year for his plea. For Charge 3, the
defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
F F
G 20. Both charges arise from the same incident, and I order G
that both charges be served concurrently. That would mean a
H total of 2 years’ imprisonment. H
I I
21. Defendant is to continue to receive psychiatric
treatment whilst serving the sentence.
J J
K K
L L
A. J. Woodcock
M District Judge M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/30.1.2013/SC 5 DCCC 998/2012/Sentence
V V