A A
B DCCC 45/2019 B
[2019] HKDC 1128
C C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45 OF 2019
F ----------------------------------- F
HKSAR
G G
v.
H WONG Sum H
-----------------------------------
I I
Before: HH Judge E. Yip
J Date: 25th June 2019 at 12:49 p.m. J
Present: Mr Victor K.H. CHIU, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
K K
Mr FUNG Lim Wai Henry, instructed by M/s Tse Yuen Ting
L Wong assigned by DLA for Defendant L
Offence: [1] Possession of an offensive weapon (管有攻擊性武器)
M M
[2] Throwing corrosive fluid with intent (有意圖而淋潑腐蝕
N N
性液體)
O ---------------------------- O
Reasons for Sentence
P P
----------------------------
Q Charges Q
R R
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 charges. Charge 1 is
S “Possession of an offensive weapon”, contrary to section 17 of the S
Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228. The maximum penalty is a fine
T T
of $5,000 and 2 years’ imprisonment. Charge 2 is “Throwing corrosive
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 2 -
A A
B fluid with intent”, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the B
Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
C C
D Facts D
E E
2. FUNG Kwok-cheung (“PW1”) and the Defendant were
F neighbours living in King Wong Mansion at No. 6 Tai Nan Street, F
Mongkok, Kowloon (“the Building”).
G G
H 3. Around noon on 29 September 2018, PW1 was repairing a H
CCTV camera on the rooftop of the Building where the Defendant’s hut
I I
was. The Defendant emerged from his hut. He approached PW1 wielding
J a 74cm-long iron crowbar in an aggressive manner. The Defendant tried to J
hit PW1 with the iron crowbar but missed.
K K
L L
4. PW1 ran to the staircase and ran down the stairs to the 12 th
M
Floor below. The Defendant gave chase. M
N N
5. At some point, the Defendant stopped chasing PW1. He
O
returned to his rooftop hut, took a bottle of green liquid and went to the O
staircase again.
P P
Q 6. When PW1 was at the staircase on the 12th Floor looking up Q
towards the rooftop, he saw the Defendant at the staircase on the rooftop
R R
pouring down green liquid towards his direction. PW1 dodged. Some green
S liquid was splashed onto him. PW1 felt burning pain on his upper and S
lower limbs. A report was made to the police.
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 7. Both PW1 and the Defendant were taken to the hospital. PW1 B
sustained minor burn wounds over his legs and upper limbs. The Defendant
C C
sustained more serious burn wounds to his legs, right arm and chest and
D abrasions to his left fourth toe. As stated in PW1’s Medical Report, the D
medical findings are “both legs and left forearm/hand: multiple spots of
E E
<0.5cm full thickness burn”. The A&E Initial Findings of the hospital in
F respect of PW1 and the Defendant and PW1’s Medical Report are exhibited F
as “E3”.
G G
H 8. The Defendant was arrested. A 74cm-long iron crowbar and a H
bottle of drain cleaner was seized from the Defendant’s rooftop hut. Only
I I
a small amount of liquid was left in the bottle of drain cleaner. The bottle
J of drain cleaner and the iron crowbar are exhibited as “E1” and “E2”. J
Photos showing the injuries of PW1 and the Defendant, the exhibits seized,
K K
the exterior and the interior of the Defendant’s rooftop hut, the staircase
L L
and the exterior of the Building, are contained in a photo album, exhibited
M
as “E4”. M
N N
9. Under caution at scene, the Defendant said that he was
O
constantly bullied by PW1 and his family, so he decided to take revenge O
and hit PW1 with the iron crowbar but he was not fast enough, he could
P P
not catch PW1 so he changed to throw drain cleaner at PW1.
Q Q
10. In subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant stated
R R
under caution that he was a retired renovation worker and that the iron
S crowbar he hit PW1 with was one of his old tools. He kept it in his rooftop S
hut. According to the Defendant, when he was chasing PW1 down the
T T
stairs, PW1 threw loosen tiles at him. He got furious, so he returned to the
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 4 -
A A
B hut, took the bottle of drain cleaner and threw its content when he caught a B
glimpse of PW1’s back at the staircase. The drain cleaner was kept at home
C C
as a household item. A lot of drain cleaner was splashed onto the Defendant
D himself because he had had a stroke and could no longer fully control his D
right hand.
E E
F 11. The bottle of drain cleaner seized from the Defendant’s F
rooftop hut was examined. Forensic scientist confirmed that only 6ml of
G G
liquid was left in the bottle and the liquid contained 99% sulphuric acid
H which was highly corrosive and capable of causing severe burns to skin H
and permanent damage to eyes.
I I
J 12. The t-shirts worn by PW1 and the Defendant at the material J
time were also examined. Burnt patches were found on the garments, which
K K
is indicative of them having come into contact with high concentration of
L L
acidic fluid. The t-shirts worn by the Defendant and PW1 are exhibited as
M
“E7” and “E8”. M
N N
13. In the premises, on 29 September 2018, the Defendant had in
O
his possession an offensive weapon, namely one crowbar, with intent to O
use the same for an unlawful purpose (“Charge 1”) and unlawfully and
P P
maliciously threw upon PW1 corrosive liquid, namely sulphuric acid, with
Q intent to do him grievous bodily harm (“Charge 2”). Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
14. The Defendant is aged 67. He had some minor criminal
T T
records back in 1987. He was born in Vietnam, of P. 4 education level. He
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 5 -
A A
B came to Hong Kong in 1971. He was married in 2002, divorced in 2007 B
after his ex-wife had obtained a one-way permit to Hong Kong. Since then,
C C
he had been living alone at the rooftop of the Building. His daughter is
D aged 22 and has recently graduated in Australia with an accountancy D
degree. She now works in an accountancy firm. His son is aged 20, a
E E
second-year university student. He had financed their education.
F F
15. Before retirement in 2012, he had worked as a renovation
G G
worker on a casual basis. Afterwards, he lived on his savings and disability
H allowance of $3,480 per month. H
I I
16. In mitigation, I am informed that the Defendant and PW1
J were owners cum occupants of their respective units in different parts of J
the rooftop. About 4 years ago, the Defendant had kept certain renovation
K K
tools in the public area. The tools were removed by PW1 when the
L L
Defendant was hospitalized for 2 months due to a stroke. They began to
M
quarrel frequently over small matters. The Defendant was frequently M
physically bullied, such as having his walking stick kicked from behind as
N N
he was walking. However, the Defendant admits in court that there was no
O
immediate provocation the moment before the present offences. O
P P
17. According to the medical report dated 5 June 2019 from Dr.
Q Yip Pui Chuen of Li Po Chun General Out Patient clinic under the Hospital Q
Authority, the Defendant was diagnosed to have diabetes, hypertension,
R R
hyperlipidemia (or high cholesterol), and haemorrhagic stroke (or rupture
S of blood vessel in the brain) with right hemiparesis (paralysis of his right S
half of body). He had to walk with a stick. In October 2018 (ie after the
T T
present offences), he was admitted for ischaemic stroke (ie lack of blood
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 6 -
A A
B flow to the brain, resulting in cell death) with an increase in slurring of B
speech and right sided weakness. In January 2019, he was admitted for
C C
recurrent ischaemic stroke. In March 2019 was his most recent
D consultation in the clinic. His condition was stable except that his blood D
pressure was slightly elevated. Medical consultation was to focus on
E E
monitoring his cardiovascular risk factors and prevention of complications
F including recurrence of stroke. F
G G
18. His counsel Mr. Fung asks me to consider a starting point of
H 3 years as PW1 only suffered slight injury. The Defendant by his own H
impulsive act had caused himself much more serious injury.
I I
J 19. The Defendant’s children are in court today. They are in good J
relationship with him. Mr. Fung also informs me that the Defendant has a
K K
plan to move out of the premises to avoid any encounter with PW1 in future.
L L
M
Sentencing considerations M
N N
20. In HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan CACC 166/2001, the ex-
O
husband of the defendant was seriously injured by corrosive fluid when he O
refused to make up with the defendant. The Court of Appeal reviews the
P P
sentences of various cases and adopts a starting point of 5 years for the
Q impulsive act of the defendant. The court regards that if the offence were Q
to arise out of cold-blooded or premeditated revenge, the sentence will be
R R
much more severe than that out of an impulsive act. The injury to the
S victim is another significant consideration. S
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 7 -
A A
B Sentencing this Defendant B
C C
21. PW1’s injury was slight. The Defendant had a bigger dose of
D his own vile medicine. His act was clearly impulsive. There were 16 steps D
between him and PW1 when he poured the corrosive fluid. His aiming and
E E
execution were both poor due to his substandard physical condition. I take
F 3 years as the starting point for Charge 2. One-third off for his plea of F
guilty, the sentence is 2 years. Further, I give 2 months’ discount due to
G G
his deteriorating medical condition. The sentence is therefore 1 year 10
H months. H
I I
22. I take 6 months as the starting point for Charge 1. One-third
J off for his plea of guilty, the sentence is 4 months. J
K K
23. After considering totality, I order the sentences to be
L L
concurrent. The overall sentence remains to be 1 year 10 months.
M M
N N
O
(E. Yip) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
A A
B DCCC 45/2019 B
[2019] HKDC 1128
C C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45 OF 2019
F ----------------------------------- F
HKSAR
G G
v.
H WONG Sum H
-----------------------------------
I I
Before: HH Judge E. Yip
J Date: 25th June 2019 at 12:49 p.m. J
Present: Mr Victor K.H. CHIU, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR
K K
Mr FUNG Lim Wai Henry, instructed by M/s Tse Yuen Ting
L Wong assigned by DLA for Defendant L
Offence: [1] Possession of an offensive weapon (管有攻擊性武器)
M M
[2] Throwing corrosive fluid with intent (有意圖而淋潑腐蝕
N N
性液體)
O ---------------------------- O
Reasons for Sentence
P P
----------------------------
Q Charges Q
R R
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 charges. Charge 1 is
S “Possession of an offensive weapon”, contrary to section 17 of the S
Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228. The maximum penalty is a fine
T T
of $5,000 and 2 years’ imprisonment. Charge 2 is “Throwing corrosive
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 2 -
A A
B fluid with intent”, contrary to section 29(c) of the Offences against the B
Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
C C
D Facts D
E E
2. FUNG Kwok-cheung (“PW1”) and the Defendant were
F neighbours living in King Wong Mansion at No. 6 Tai Nan Street, F
Mongkok, Kowloon (“the Building”).
G G
H 3. Around noon on 29 September 2018, PW1 was repairing a H
CCTV camera on the rooftop of the Building where the Defendant’s hut
I I
was. The Defendant emerged from his hut. He approached PW1 wielding
J a 74cm-long iron crowbar in an aggressive manner. The Defendant tried to J
hit PW1 with the iron crowbar but missed.
K K
L L
4. PW1 ran to the staircase and ran down the stairs to the 12 th
M
Floor below. The Defendant gave chase. M
N N
5. At some point, the Defendant stopped chasing PW1. He
O
returned to his rooftop hut, took a bottle of green liquid and went to the O
staircase again.
P P
Q 6. When PW1 was at the staircase on the 12th Floor looking up Q
towards the rooftop, he saw the Defendant at the staircase on the rooftop
R R
pouring down green liquid towards his direction. PW1 dodged. Some green
S liquid was splashed onto him. PW1 felt burning pain on his upper and S
lower limbs. A report was made to the police.
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 3 -
A A
B 7. Both PW1 and the Defendant were taken to the hospital. PW1 B
sustained minor burn wounds over his legs and upper limbs. The Defendant
C C
sustained more serious burn wounds to his legs, right arm and chest and
D abrasions to his left fourth toe. As stated in PW1’s Medical Report, the D
medical findings are “both legs and left forearm/hand: multiple spots of
E E
<0.5cm full thickness burn”. The A&E Initial Findings of the hospital in
F respect of PW1 and the Defendant and PW1’s Medical Report are exhibited F
as “E3”.
G G
H 8. The Defendant was arrested. A 74cm-long iron crowbar and a H
bottle of drain cleaner was seized from the Defendant’s rooftop hut. Only
I I
a small amount of liquid was left in the bottle of drain cleaner. The bottle
J of drain cleaner and the iron crowbar are exhibited as “E1” and “E2”. J
Photos showing the injuries of PW1 and the Defendant, the exhibits seized,
K K
the exterior and the interior of the Defendant’s rooftop hut, the staircase
L L
and the exterior of the Building, are contained in a photo album, exhibited
M
as “E4”. M
N N
9. Under caution at scene, the Defendant said that he was
O
constantly bullied by PW1 and his family, so he decided to take revenge O
and hit PW1 with the iron crowbar but he was not fast enough, he could
P P
not catch PW1 so he changed to throw drain cleaner at PW1.
Q Q
10. In subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant stated
R R
under caution that he was a retired renovation worker and that the iron
S crowbar he hit PW1 with was one of his old tools. He kept it in his rooftop S
hut. According to the Defendant, when he was chasing PW1 down the
T T
stairs, PW1 threw loosen tiles at him. He got furious, so he returned to the
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 4 -
A A
B hut, took the bottle of drain cleaner and threw its content when he caught a B
glimpse of PW1’s back at the staircase. The drain cleaner was kept at home
C C
as a household item. A lot of drain cleaner was splashed onto the Defendant
D himself because he had had a stroke and could no longer fully control his D
right hand.
E E
F 11. The bottle of drain cleaner seized from the Defendant’s F
rooftop hut was examined. Forensic scientist confirmed that only 6ml of
G G
liquid was left in the bottle and the liquid contained 99% sulphuric acid
H which was highly corrosive and capable of causing severe burns to skin H
and permanent damage to eyes.
I I
J 12. The t-shirts worn by PW1 and the Defendant at the material J
time were also examined. Burnt patches were found on the garments, which
K K
is indicative of them having come into contact with high concentration of
L L
acidic fluid. The t-shirts worn by the Defendant and PW1 are exhibited as
M
“E7” and “E8”. M
N N
13. In the premises, on 29 September 2018, the Defendant had in
O
his possession an offensive weapon, namely one crowbar, with intent to O
use the same for an unlawful purpose (“Charge 1”) and unlawfully and
P P
maliciously threw upon PW1 corrosive liquid, namely sulphuric acid, with
Q intent to do him grievous bodily harm (“Charge 2”). Q
R R
Mitigation
S S
14. The Defendant is aged 67. He had some minor criminal
T T
records back in 1987. He was born in Vietnam, of P. 4 education level. He
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 5 -
A A
B came to Hong Kong in 1971. He was married in 2002, divorced in 2007 B
after his ex-wife had obtained a one-way permit to Hong Kong. Since then,
C C
he had been living alone at the rooftop of the Building. His daughter is
D aged 22 and has recently graduated in Australia with an accountancy D
degree. She now works in an accountancy firm. His son is aged 20, a
E E
second-year university student. He had financed their education.
F F
15. Before retirement in 2012, he had worked as a renovation
G G
worker on a casual basis. Afterwards, he lived on his savings and disability
H allowance of $3,480 per month. H
I I
16. In mitigation, I am informed that the Defendant and PW1
J were owners cum occupants of their respective units in different parts of J
the rooftop. About 4 years ago, the Defendant had kept certain renovation
K K
tools in the public area. The tools were removed by PW1 when the
L L
Defendant was hospitalized for 2 months due to a stroke. They began to
M
quarrel frequently over small matters. The Defendant was frequently M
physically bullied, such as having his walking stick kicked from behind as
N N
he was walking. However, the Defendant admits in court that there was no
O
immediate provocation the moment before the present offences. O
P P
17. According to the medical report dated 5 June 2019 from Dr.
Q Yip Pui Chuen of Li Po Chun General Out Patient clinic under the Hospital Q
Authority, the Defendant was diagnosed to have diabetes, hypertension,
R R
hyperlipidemia (or high cholesterol), and haemorrhagic stroke (or rupture
S of blood vessel in the brain) with right hemiparesis (paralysis of his right S
half of body). He had to walk with a stick. In October 2018 (ie after the
T T
present offences), he was admitted for ischaemic stroke (ie lack of blood
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 6 -
A A
B flow to the brain, resulting in cell death) with an increase in slurring of B
speech and right sided weakness. In January 2019, he was admitted for
C C
recurrent ischaemic stroke. In March 2019 was his most recent
D consultation in the clinic. His condition was stable except that his blood D
pressure was slightly elevated. Medical consultation was to focus on
E E
monitoring his cardiovascular risk factors and prevention of complications
F including recurrence of stroke. F
G G
18. His counsel Mr. Fung asks me to consider a starting point of
H 3 years as PW1 only suffered slight injury. The Defendant by his own H
impulsive act had caused himself much more serious injury.
I I
J 19. The Defendant’s children are in court today. They are in good J
relationship with him. Mr. Fung also informs me that the Defendant has a
K K
plan to move out of the premises to avoid any encounter with PW1 in future.
L L
M
Sentencing considerations M
N N
20. In HKSAR v Wong Siu Kwan CACC 166/2001, the ex-
O
husband of the defendant was seriously injured by corrosive fluid when he O
refused to make up with the defendant. The Court of Appeal reviews the
P P
sentences of various cases and adopts a starting point of 5 years for the
Q impulsive act of the defendant. The court regards that if the offence were Q
to arise out of cold-blooded or premeditated revenge, the sentence will be
R R
much more severe than that out of an impulsive act. The injury to the
S victim is another significant consideration. S
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V
- 7 -
A A
B Sentencing this Defendant B
C C
21. PW1’s injury was slight. The Defendant had a bigger dose of
D his own vile medicine. His act was clearly impulsive. There were 16 steps D
between him and PW1 when he poured the corrosive fluid. His aiming and
E E
execution were both poor due to his substandard physical condition. I take
F 3 years as the starting point for Charge 2. One-third off for his plea of F
guilty, the sentence is 2 years. Further, I give 2 months’ discount due to
G G
his deteriorating medical condition. The sentence is therefore 1 year 10
H months. H
I I
22. I take 6 months as the starting point for Charge 1. One-third
J off for his plea of guilty, the sentence is 4 months. J
K K
23. After considering totality, I order the sentences to be
L L
concurrent. The overall sentence remains to be 1 year 10 months.
M M
N N
O
(E. Yip) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT29/25.6.2019 DCCC 45/2019/Sentence
V V