區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Veronica Heung18/6/2024[2024] HKDC 1008
DCCC742/2023
A A
B B
DCCC 742/2023
C [2024] HKDC 1008 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 742 OF 2023
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
NG YAT CHIU
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Veronica Heung
K K
Date: 19 June 2024
L Present: Ms Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor of Department L
of Justice, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Leung Andrew Christopher H Y, instructed by Jackson Ho
N N
& Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
O
Offence: [1] & [2] Criminal intimidation（刑事恐嚇） O
[3] Possession of offensive weapons （管有攻擊性武器）
P P
[4] False imprisonment （非法禁錮）
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to the following four charges
C C
Charges 1 and 2: Criminal Intimidation contrary to sections
D D
24(a)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap. 200; E
F F
Charge 3 : Possession of an Offensive Weapon,
G contrary to section 17 of the Summary G
Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228;
H H
I Charge 4 : False Imprisonment, contrary to Common I
Law and punishable under section 101I of
J J
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
K 221. K
L L
SUMMARY OF FACTS
M M
2. There are two victims in the case. They are the son (in relation
N N
to Charge 1) and daughter (in relation to Charges 2 to 4) of the defendant.
O At the material time, the son was aged 17 and the daughter 11 years. The O
four charges are a series of events that took place over one day at their
P P
home when their mother, wife of the defendant, was out of the home, at her
Q place of work. Q
R R
3. On 30 April 2023 at about 11:30am, having had a money
S dispute with his wife over the phone, the defendant asked the son to print S
out some images of a resignation letter of a colleague of his wife.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
4. The son complied but having done so, he locked himself up in
C the bathroom and informed his mother via WhatsApp about it. C
D D
(Charge 1)
E E
5. Obviously somehow the defendant learnt about it. He banged
F F
on the bathroom door and scolded the son for telling his mother. The son
G did not open the door. The defendant then went to the kitchen and picked G
up two knives. Holding one knife in each hand, the defendant banged them
H H
onto the bathroom door 3 to 4 times while repeatedly threatened to chop
I the son to death. This lasted 3 to 4 minutes. The son was scared and called I
the police while remaining in the bathroom.
J J
K (Charges 2 to 4) K
L L
6. The knives were a chopper and a kitchen knife. The chopper
M was 29cm in length including the handle, with a 13cm long sharp blade. M
The kitchen knife was 24.5 cm in length including the handle, with a 17.5
N N
cm sharp blade.
O O
7. When this happened, the daughter was in the living room. She
P P
saw how the defendant got hold of the knives and banged them onto the
Q bathroom door. Q
R R
8. Meanwhile, the wife came back and asked the defendant to
S open the door. The defendant refused. She did not have the keys to the S
unit at that time.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
9. At about 12:07pm, the police arrived. The main door was
C open but the iron grille was locked. The defendant refused to open the iron C
grille as requested and even closed the door.
D D
E 10. The daughter wanted to open the door for the police but was E
stopped by the defendant. Holding the two knives in his hands, the
F F
defendant ordered the daughter to sit down and not to interfere or else she
G would die first. The daughter was scared. G
H H
11. Later on, the defendant opened the main door and scolded the
I police emotionally while the daughter was seen standing in the living room I
crying. A moment later the defendant holding the chopper in his right hand,
J J
walked towards the police and closed the main door again. The defendant
K shouted from inside that he was going to kill the daughter. K
L L
12. The police then started to prize open the iron grille and at the
M same time gave repeated warnings to the defendant that they were about to M
force open the main door. The defendant immediately grabbed the
N N
daughter and held the kitchen knife to the daughter’s neck in one hand
O while wielding the chopper at the police in the other. The defendant O
threatened to kill the daughter if the police entered.
P P
Q 13. At about 12:15pm, the police forcibly opened the main door. Q
They saw the defendant was holding the daughter hostage at knifepoint.
R R
The police discharged OC foam at the defendant who then let go of the
S daughter and dropped the knives. The defendant was subdued and S
subsequently arrested.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. During the incident, the defendant had held the kitchen knife
C to the daughter’s neck for 3 to 4 minutes. C
D D
15. The son came out from the bathroom after the police had told
E him it was safe to do so. E
F F
(Injury)
G G
16. Both the son and the daughter were sent to the hospital for
H H
examination. No physical injury was found on the son. Mild bilateral
I conjunctive redness was found on the daughter. I
J J
CRIMINAL RECORD
K K
17. The defendant has a clear record.
L L
M BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION M
N N
18. The defendant is 50 years old. He used to work as an
O administrator in a post office, earning around HKD10,000 per month. In O
about 2010 at his workplace, he was hit by a trolley and injured his hip.
P P
Since then he was unable to work and became the house-husband of the
Q family. He has been receiving disability allowance. Q
R R
19. As revealed in the summary of facts, the defendant and his
S wife have 2 children, the victims in the case. The son is now aged 18 and S
the daughter 12 years respectively.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
20. Counsel for the defendant Mr Leung submits that since the
C defendant was detained for the present offences, the family had moved out C
of the matrimonial home and found government housing elsewhere. The
D D
defendant plans to return to live in the matrimonial home alone upon
E release from custody. E
F F
21. Mr Leung further submits that as revealed in the psychiatrists’
G reports obtained in May 2023 by the magistrate when the defendant was G
brought to the court, the defendant has suffered from psychological
H H
disorders since 2010, when he was diagnosed with moderate depressive
I episodes. At the time of the offences, the defendant unreasonably believed I
that his wife was having an extra-marital affair. He felt extremely jealous
J J
and suffered from delusional disorder. He is now aware that his thoughts
K were unjustified and he had jumped to unreasonable conclusions against K
his wife due to his deluded mind-set. He is remorseful.
L L
M 22. Mr Leung stresses that the crimes were not pre-meditated. M
The defendant did not envisage that his mood would escalate and spiral out
N N
of control, or that the police would arrive. He was suffering from an
O undiagnosed mood disorder and sadly reacting to matters that he had not O
pre-conceived.
P P
Q 23. The defendant is extremely remorseful and promises never to Q
reoffend. He promises to take his medication on a regular basis and to
R R
exercise more self-control in the future, so as to prevent himself from
S acting in a deluded manner again. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
CONSIDERATION
C C
24. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything
D D
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Leung together with the letters of
E mitigation written by the defendant and his family members. I have also E
taken into account the pre-sentencing reports obtained, namely a
F F
background report and two psychiatrists’ reports. I have also been referred
G to authorities and cases dealing with sentencing similar offences. G
H H
25. Despite the defendant’s admission to all these charges, it is
I clear from the nature and number of charges, the facts pertaining to each I
charge as well as the background of the defendant that the only viable
J J
sentencing option is imprisonment. The 2-month hospital order
K recommended by the psychiatrists is too lenient, which fails to reflect the K
seriousness of the charges. The only question to be determined is the
L L
length of the sentence for each charge, and the length of the overall term
M of imprisonment to be served by the defendant. M
N N
26. The maximum sentence for the offence of criminal
O intimidation, as provided in section 27 of the Crimes Ordinance, is 5 years’ O
imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the offence of possession of an
P P
offensive weapon with intent, as provided in section 17 of the Summary
Q Offences Ordinance, is 2 years. The maximum sentence for the Common Q
Law offence of false imprisonment, as provided in section 101I of the
R R
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, is 7 years’ imprisonment. There are no
S guidelines or tariffs for these types of offences. The starting point for the S
charges are very fact-dependent meaning they depend on the facts of each
T T
case.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 27. I accept that the offences were not pre-meditated. At the time C
of the offences the defendant suffered from delusional disorder as
D D
evidenced by the persistent persecutory morbid jealousy towards his wife,
E with history of depression, as diagnosed by the psychiatrists in the reports. E
F F
28. However, the fact that the defendant acted in the false belief
G that his wife was having an affair with her colleague had nothing to do with G
the children. The defendant went even so far that he took knives from the
H H
kitchen and used them to alarm the children while at the same time uttering
I threatening words towards them. The defendant further put the daughter I
at the knifepoint when the police were trying to enter the premises and save
J J
the children. It was by sheer luck that the daughter did not suffer more
K serious physical injury as a result. The defendant was in stark breach of K
the trust owed to his children by committing the present offences. It must
L L
have been an extremely frightening experience for the children, especially
M for the daughter who was only 11 years old and now 12. The daughter said M
in her victim impact statement that she still felt scared whenever she heard
N N
sounds of keys to the iron grille or that of knocking doors worrying that the
O defendant would go home. O
P P
29. Having said that, I consider there were no profound short-term
Q or long-term effects of the ordeal on the two victims as they both said in Q
their respective victim impact statement that they could continue to go to
R R
school and take part in social activities as usual after the event.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
30. The whole incident lasted about half an hour, during which
C the defendant subjected the children to substantial fear and the daughter C
was detained against her will for about 7 minutes.
D D
E STARTING POINT E
F F
31. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind the previous good
G character of the defendant and that he is now truly remorseful and having G
regard to the seriousness of the offences as outlined above, I consider the
H H
appropriate starting point for the charges are as follows:
I I
Charge 1 : 12 months’ imprisonment
J J
K Charge 2 : 15 months’ imprisonment K
L L
Charge 3 : 18 months’ imprisonment
M M
Charge 4 : 21 months’ imprisonment
N N
O MITIGATING FACTORS O
P P
32. In regard to mitigating factors, first, the defendant pleads
Q guilty, I reduce the starting points by one third to 8 months, 10 months, 12 Q
months and 14 months respectively.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
33. Second, in HKSAR v Chiu Peng, Richard [2002] 1 HKC 401
C the Court of Appeal accepted that a court may properly allow a discount in C
sentence where a defendant is suffering from mental illness which played
D D
a part in the commission of the offence. The court said the justification for
E a discount in sentence by reason of mental illness was as a reflection of E
diminished criminality or culpability on the part of the accused who has
F F
committed a crime under an abnormal state of mind.
G G
34. Both Dr. Wong and Dr. Tang, in their respective reports dated
H H
12 May 2023 and 17 June 2024, opined that the defendant had long
I suffered from delusional disorder as evidenced by the persistent I
persecutory morbid jealousy, with history of depression. I accept their
J J
opinion and take this into account in passing sentence.
K K
35. Third, both children expressed in their respective victim
L L
impact statement and letter of mitigation that they forgive the defendant
M and hope that the court can give the defendant a lenient sentence. In R v M
Buchanan [1980] 2 Cr App R (S) 13 as applied in Secretary for Justice v
N N
Chau Wan-fun [2006] 3 HKLRD 577, the court held that the fact that the
O offence was committed within a domestic context and the victim had O
forgiven the offender, did not deflect from the duty of the court to impose
P P
a sentence appropriate to the gravity of the offence. Nevertheless, I take
Q the forgiveness of the children into account in passing sentence. Q
R R
36. Taking into account the defendant was suffering from
S delusional disorder and the declared forgiveness of the children, I further S
reduce the sentences by 2 months to 6 months, 8 months, 10 months and
T T
12 months respectively.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C SENTENCES C
D D
37. So the sentences will be as follows :
E E
Charge 1: 6 months’ imprisonment
F F
G Charge 2: 8 months’ imprisonment G
H H
Charge 3: 10 months’ imprisonment
I I
Charge 4: 12 months’ imprisonment
J J
K TOTALITY K
L L
38. Charges 2 to 4 took place after the presence of the police and
M following their request for opening the door. These three offences arose M
out of the same incident and were part of one transaction, I am satisfied
N N
concurrent sentences are appropriate, making a subtotal of 12 months
O imprisonment. O
P P
39. Charge 1 took place before the presence of the police.
Q Although it is related to the other three charges, it is somewhat a separate Q
and distinct offending arising from the defendant’s anger towards the son
R R
for his telling of his mother about the printing matter. Charges 2 to 4
S increased the culpability of the defendant. Taking into account the totality S
principle, I order that 3 months in Charge 1 be run consecutively to Charges
T T
2 to 4, making a total of 15 months’ imprisonment.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 40. In summary, the defendant has to serve a total of 15 months’ C
imprisonment.
D D
E 41. I am mindful that the defendant has been in custody since the E
date of his arrest, 30 April 2023.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( Veronica Heung.)
J Deputy District Judge J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 742/2023
C [2024] HKDC 1008 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 742 OF 2023
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
NG YAT CHIU
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: Deputy District Judge Veronica Heung
K K
Date: 19 June 2024
L Present: Ms Wong Yin Yee, Christy, Public Prosecutor of Department L
of Justice, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Leung Andrew Christopher H Y, instructed by Jackson Ho
N N
& Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
O
Offence: [1] & [2] Criminal intimidation（刑事恐嚇） O
[3] Possession of offensive weapons （管有攻擊性武器）
P P
[4] False imprisonment （非法禁錮）
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to the following four charges
C C
Charges 1 and 2: Criminal Intimidation contrary to sections
D D
24(a)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance,
E Cap. 200; E
F F
Charge 3 : Possession of an Offensive Weapon,
G contrary to section 17 of the Summary G
Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228;
H H
I Charge 4 : False Imprisonment, contrary to Common I
Law and punishable under section 101I of
J J
the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
K 221. K
L L
SUMMARY OF FACTS
M M
2. There are two victims in the case. They are the son (in relation
N N
to Charge 1) and daughter (in relation to Charges 2 to 4) of the defendant.
O At the material time, the son was aged 17 and the daughter 11 years. The O
four charges are a series of events that took place over one day at their
P P
home when their mother, wife of the defendant, was out of the home, at her
Q place of work. Q
R R
3. On 30 April 2023 at about 11:30am, having had a money
S dispute with his wife over the phone, the defendant asked the son to print S
out some images of a resignation letter of a colleague of his wife.
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
4. The son complied but having done so, he locked himself up in
C the bathroom and informed his mother via WhatsApp about it. C
D D
(Charge 1)
E E
5. Obviously somehow the defendant learnt about it. He banged
F F
on the bathroom door and scolded the son for telling his mother. The son
G did not open the door. The defendant then went to the kitchen and picked G
up two knives. Holding one knife in each hand, the defendant banged them
H H
onto the bathroom door 3 to 4 times while repeatedly threatened to chop
I the son to death. This lasted 3 to 4 minutes. The son was scared and called I
the police while remaining in the bathroom.
J J
K (Charges 2 to 4) K
L L
6. The knives were a chopper and a kitchen knife. The chopper
M was 29cm in length including the handle, with a 13cm long sharp blade. M
The kitchen knife was 24.5 cm in length including the handle, with a 17.5
N N
cm sharp blade.
O O
7. When this happened, the daughter was in the living room. She
P P
saw how the defendant got hold of the knives and banged them onto the
Q bathroom door. Q
R R
8. Meanwhile, the wife came back and asked the defendant to
S open the door. The defendant refused. She did not have the keys to the S
unit at that time.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
9. At about 12:07pm, the police arrived. The main door was
C open but the iron grille was locked. The defendant refused to open the iron C
grille as requested and even closed the door.
D D
E 10. The daughter wanted to open the door for the police but was E
stopped by the defendant. Holding the two knives in his hands, the
F F
defendant ordered the daughter to sit down and not to interfere or else she
G would die first. The daughter was scared. G
H H
11. Later on, the defendant opened the main door and scolded the
I police emotionally while the daughter was seen standing in the living room I
crying. A moment later the defendant holding the chopper in his right hand,
J J
walked towards the police and closed the main door again. The defendant
K shouted from inside that he was going to kill the daughter. K
L L
12. The police then started to prize open the iron grille and at the
M same time gave repeated warnings to the defendant that they were about to M
force open the main door. The defendant immediately grabbed the
N N
daughter and held the kitchen knife to the daughter’s neck in one hand
O while wielding the chopper at the police in the other. The defendant O
threatened to kill the daughter if the police entered.
P P
Q 13. At about 12:15pm, the police forcibly opened the main door. Q
They saw the defendant was holding the daughter hostage at knifepoint.
R R
The police discharged OC foam at the defendant who then let go of the
S daughter and dropped the knives. The defendant was subdued and S
subsequently arrested.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
14. During the incident, the defendant had held the kitchen knife
C to the daughter’s neck for 3 to 4 minutes. C
D D
15. The son came out from the bathroom after the police had told
E him it was safe to do so. E
F F
(Injury)
G G
16. Both the son and the daughter were sent to the hospital for
H H
examination. No physical injury was found on the son. Mild bilateral
I conjunctive redness was found on the daughter. I
J J
CRIMINAL RECORD
K K
17. The defendant has a clear record.
L L
M BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION M
N N
18. The defendant is 50 years old. He used to work as an
O administrator in a post office, earning around HKD10,000 per month. In O
about 2010 at his workplace, he was hit by a trolley and injured his hip.
P P
Since then he was unable to work and became the house-husband of the
Q family. He has been receiving disability allowance. Q
R R
19. As revealed in the summary of facts, the defendant and his
S wife have 2 children, the victims in the case. The son is now aged 18 and S
the daughter 12 years respectively.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
20. Counsel for the defendant Mr Leung submits that since the
C defendant was detained for the present offences, the family had moved out C
of the matrimonial home and found government housing elsewhere. The
D D
defendant plans to return to live in the matrimonial home alone upon
E release from custody. E
F F
21. Mr Leung further submits that as revealed in the psychiatrists’
G reports obtained in May 2023 by the magistrate when the defendant was G
brought to the court, the defendant has suffered from psychological
H H
disorders since 2010, when he was diagnosed with moderate depressive
I episodes. At the time of the offences, the defendant unreasonably believed I
that his wife was having an extra-marital affair. He felt extremely jealous
J J
and suffered from delusional disorder. He is now aware that his thoughts
K were unjustified and he had jumped to unreasonable conclusions against K
his wife due to his deluded mind-set. He is remorseful.
L L
M 22. Mr Leung stresses that the crimes were not pre-meditated. M
The defendant did not envisage that his mood would escalate and spiral out
N N
of control, or that the police would arrive. He was suffering from an
O undiagnosed mood disorder and sadly reacting to matters that he had not O
pre-conceived.
P P
Q 23. The defendant is extremely remorseful and promises never to Q
reoffend. He promises to take his medication on a regular basis and to
R R
exercise more self-control in the future, so as to prevent himself from
S acting in a deluded manner again. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
CONSIDERATION
C C
24. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything
D D
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Leung together with the letters of
E mitigation written by the defendant and his family members. I have also E
taken into account the pre-sentencing reports obtained, namely a
F F
background report and two psychiatrists’ reports. I have also been referred
G to authorities and cases dealing with sentencing similar offences. G
H H
25. Despite the defendant’s admission to all these charges, it is
I clear from the nature and number of charges, the facts pertaining to each I
charge as well as the background of the defendant that the only viable
J J
sentencing option is imprisonment. The 2-month hospital order
K recommended by the psychiatrists is too lenient, which fails to reflect the K
seriousness of the charges. The only question to be determined is the
L L
length of the sentence for each charge, and the length of the overall term
M of imprisonment to be served by the defendant. M
N N
26. The maximum sentence for the offence of criminal
O intimidation, as provided in section 27 of the Crimes Ordinance, is 5 years’ O
imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the offence of possession of an
P P
offensive weapon with intent, as provided in section 17 of the Summary
Q Offences Ordinance, is 2 years. The maximum sentence for the Common Q
Law offence of false imprisonment, as provided in section 101I of the
R R
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, is 7 years’ imprisonment. There are no
S guidelines or tariffs for these types of offences. The starting point for the S
charges are very fact-dependent meaning they depend on the facts of each
T T
case.
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C 27. I accept that the offences were not pre-meditated. At the time C
of the offences the defendant suffered from delusional disorder as
D D
evidenced by the persistent persecutory morbid jealousy towards his wife,
E with history of depression, as diagnosed by the psychiatrists in the reports. E
F F
28. However, the fact that the defendant acted in the false belief
G that his wife was having an affair with her colleague had nothing to do with G
the children. The defendant went even so far that he took knives from the
H H
kitchen and used them to alarm the children while at the same time uttering
I threatening words towards them. The defendant further put the daughter I
at the knifepoint when the police were trying to enter the premises and save
J J
the children. It was by sheer luck that the daughter did not suffer more
K serious physical injury as a result. The defendant was in stark breach of K
the trust owed to his children by committing the present offences. It must
L L
have been an extremely frightening experience for the children, especially
M for the daughter who was only 11 years old and now 12. The daughter said M
in her victim impact statement that she still felt scared whenever she heard
N N
sounds of keys to the iron grille or that of knocking doors worrying that the
O defendant would go home. O
P P
29. Having said that, I consider there were no profound short-term
Q or long-term effects of the ordeal on the two victims as they both said in Q
their respective victim impact statement that they could continue to go to
R R
school and take part in social activities as usual after the event.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
30. The whole incident lasted about half an hour, during which
C the defendant subjected the children to substantial fear and the daughter C
was detained against her will for about 7 minutes.
D D
E STARTING POINT E
F F
31. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind the previous good
G character of the defendant and that he is now truly remorseful and having G
regard to the seriousness of the offences as outlined above, I consider the
H H
appropriate starting point for the charges are as follows:
I I
Charge 1 : 12 months’ imprisonment
J J
K Charge 2 : 15 months’ imprisonment K
L L
Charge 3 : 18 months’ imprisonment
M M
Charge 4 : 21 months’ imprisonment
N N
O MITIGATING FACTORS O
P P
32. In regard to mitigating factors, first, the defendant pleads
Q guilty, I reduce the starting points by one third to 8 months, 10 months, 12 Q
months and 14 months respectively.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
33. Second, in HKSAR v Chiu Peng, Richard [2002] 1 HKC 401
C the Court of Appeal accepted that a court may properly allow a discount in C
sentence where a defendant is suffering from mental illness which played
D D
a part in the commission of the offence. The court said the justification for
E a discount in sentence by reason of mental illness was as a reflection of E
diminished criminality or culpability on the part of the accused who has
F F
committed a crime under an abnormal state of mind.
G G
34. Both Dr. Wong and Dr. Tang, in their respective reports dated
H H
12 May 2023 and 17 June 2024, opined that the defendant had long
I suffered from delusional disorder as evidenced by the persistent I
persecutory morbid jealousy, with history of depression. I accept their
J J
opinion and take this into account in passing sentence.
K K
35. Third, both children expressed in their respective victim
L L
impact statement and letter of mitigation that they forgive the defendant
M and hope that the court can give the defendant a lenient sentence. In R v M
Buchanan [1980] 2 Cr App R (S) 13 as applied in Secretary for Justice v
N N
Chau Wan-fun [2006] 3 HKLRD 577, the court held that the fact that the
O offence was committed within a domestic context and the victim had O
forgiven the offender, did not deflect from the duty of the court to impose
P P
a sentence appropriate to the gravity of the offence. Nevertheless, I take
Q the forgiveness of the children into account in passing sentence. Q
R R
36. Taking into account the defendant was suffering from
S delusional disorder and the declared forgiveness of the children, I further S
reduce the sentences by 2 months to 6 months, 8 months, 10 months and
T T
12 months respectively.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C SENTENCES C
D D
37. So the sentences will be as follows :
E E
Charge 1: 6 months’ imprisonment
F F
G Charge 2: 8 months’ imprisonment G
H H
Charge 3: 10 months’ imprisonment
I I
Charge 4: 12 months’ imprisonment
J J
K TOTALITY K
L L
38. Charges 2 to 4 took place after the presence of the police and
M following their request for opening the door. These three offences arose M
out of the same incident and were part of one transaction, I am satisfied
N N
concurrent sentences are appropriate, making a subtotal of 12 months
O imprisonment. O
P P
39. Charge 1 took place before the presence of the police.
Q Although it is related to the other three charges, it is somewhat a separate Q
and distinct offending arising from the defendant’s anger towards the son
R R
for his telling of his mother about the printing matter. Charges 2 to 4
S increased the culpability of the defendant. Taking into account the totality S
principle, I order that 3 months in Charge 1 be run consecutively to Charges
T T
2 to 4, making a total of 15 months’ imprisonment.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 40. In summary, the defendant has to serve a total of 15 months’ C
imprisonment.
D D
E 41. I am mindful that the defendant has been in custody since the E
date of his arrest, 30 April 2023.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( Veronica Heung.)
J Deputy District Judge J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V