THE QUEEN v. CHAN GE CHUN

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Kempster, J.A.

1. On 24th September 1987 Chan Ge Chun was convicted by H. H. Judge Cameron at the Hong Kong District Court of wounding with intent and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Against that sentence he seeks leave to appeal.

2. On the applicant's behalf Mr. Polson made an initial application pursuant to Section 83v of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance for the admission of further evidence namely a Psychiatric Report prepared by Dr. Sylvia Chen and dated 22nd September 1987, albeit that report might well have been made available to the trial judge. He have exercised our discretion to admit it in evidence before us and to take its contents into account.

3. It appears that the applicant has devoted his life in Hong Kong to devoted work as a gardener for the Urban Services Department. He was provided with accommodation adjacent to his work. The time came when it was thought that he had reached retirement age and he was asked to leave the accommodation provided. He himself did not know and we do not know his exact age and be could not accept the situation. He felt deeply aggrieved thinking that he had been treated unfairly. His anger spilt over on 4th  June 1987 when, having pleaded with Miss Kwong Yuk Wah, an officer concerned with his employment, he found that there would be no change in his employers' attitude to his retirement and to his accommodation. He returned to her office with a chopper, attacked and pursued her and inflicted a number of wounds which included a deep cut in and a fracture of the bones of, the left hand, cuts to the right hand involving the index and right middle fingers, a deep cut to the right lower forearm down to the hone and further multiple cuts to the head, neck and trunk.

4. These were serious injuries indeed and the circumstances suggest that the applicant had lost both his self-control and all sense of moral responsibility. That suggestion is borne out by Dr. Chen's report which shows that , on 22nd September 1987 at least, the applicant still considered his actions justified as a display of righteous anger.

5. It is mot suggested on the applicant' behalf that further medical reports should be obtained with a view to our exercising the powers we might have under Section 83I(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to make an order under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. Accordingly we see no grounds for interfering with what is conceded to be a perfectly proper sentence in the context of someone whose mental condition is not in question.

6. Although we refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence we direct that a copy of Dr. Chen's report be placed before the Commissioner of Correctional Services to assist his consideration of the appropriate conditions for the applicant's confinement and treatment by his Department.