香港特別行政區 訴 尹瑞輝

CACC87/1999

香港特別行政區

高等法院

上訴法庭

高院刑事上訴1999年第87號

(原本案件編號: 區院刑事案件1998年第1156號)

_______________

_______________

聆訊日期: 1999年8月24日及2000年4月11日

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

由高等法院首席法官陳兆愷宣讀上訴法庭判案書:

1. 上訴申請人於區域法院經審訊後被裁定三項有意圖傷人罪，罪名成立。法官頒下醫院命令把他無限期羈留於小欖精神治療中心。他申請上訴許可要求推翻定罪及減刑。去年8月24日申請人要求取消就定罪的申請，獲本庭批准。本庭把就刑期的申請押後以便雙方取得最新的精神科醫生報告。

2. 本案案情如下。申請人與事主一家人同住英皇道一個天台的兩間木屋，曾因用水問題發生爭執。於1997年10月23日晚上九時許，當事人及兒子和女兒在家中吃飯的時候，申請人敲門，事主及兒子應門。其後遭申請人用刀襲擊，兩父子同告受傷。事主左手前臂、手掌及右手均遭刀傷，而他的兒子則左手、右手及前額受傷。申請人事後逃去，不在天台的木屋居住。1998年6月9日，事主與朋友回家，在天台門口與申請人相遇，申請人用水喉管向事主襲擊，刺傷事主背部，當時事主朋友以雨傘及花盆擊向申請人，申請人才逃去。其後被捕。

3. 申請人出庭作供時稱他與事主一家人同在天台其中兩間木屋居住，曾有過節，事主經常向他滋擾。上述兩次事件發生時，是事主及兒子向他襲擊，他只是自?。法官詳細考慮及分柝所有證據後，包括事主及兒子的驗傷報告，確信申請人先後兩次向事主二人襲擊引致他們受傷，因此判申請人罪名成立。

4. 申請人自1991年起患有精神病。在區域法院法官席前有兩份醫生報告，其中一位黃醫生指出：

" In my opinion WAN has been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and he has harboured the psychotic symptoms for years. WAN is a highly dangerous person because of his readiness to act out his delusions in a violent manner."

In view of the presence of psychotic symptoms, his lack of remorse and insight, and the severity of the repeated offences, a longer period of inpatient treatment is indicated. I would recommend a Hospital Order of unspecified period at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under Mental Health Ordinance and his fitness for discharge could be reviewed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

5. 另一位吳醫生亦作出報告指出如下：

"In my opinion, Mr WAN has suffred from paranoid schizophrenia for at least ten years. He has harboured persistent delusion and hallucination. The index offence was likely committed under the influence of his psychotic symptoms. Currently he still has active symptoms with associated emotions. In view of the repeated, serious violent acts, his active symptoms, his anger towards the victims and his poor insight, he certainly needs inpatient treatment for a relatively long period of time. Taking all these factors into account, I would respectfully suggest the court to give him a Hospital Order under Section45 of Mental Health Ordinance for an unspecified period. He can serve the Order at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre and he will be subject to regular review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal will then review his progress and determine the appropriate time for discharge."

6. 基於兩份報告指出溫先生其實患有精神病並有暴力傾向，因此他們均推廌法庭頒下醫院命令，把申請人無限期羈留於小欖精神治療中心。

7. 本庭因為申請人申請上訴許可要求減刑，便要求控方呈交兩份最新的報告，並同時令代表申請人的法律援助署找精神科醫生檢查申請人的狀況。在本庭開庭前，法律援助署代表大律師曾經將三份報告向申請人詳細解釋。其中一位精神科醫生吳醫生在報告書中寫出：

“Mr WAN's schizophrenic illness is still not in remission. He still has prominent persecutory delusions and he is emotionally charged when mentioned about the delusions. His insight towards his mental illness is poor. Given the index repeated, serious violent acts, his persistent psychotic symptoms and his lack of remorse for the offence, I am still of the view that a Hospital Order of an unspecified period is appropriate. He will be subject to regular review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

8. 另一位蔡醫生在報告中亦指出：

“In my opinion, WAN is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia currently still not yet remitted, and active persecutory delusion was still present. In view of his poor insight, uncooperative attitude towards treatment, current active symptoms and predicted high violent risk, a Hospital Order for an unspecified period is still appropriate to him. He will be subject to regular review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal."

9. 值得注意的是，蔡醫生並不是在區域法院時兩名精神科醫生的其中一人，因此在控方來說是有三名醫生先後證明申請人的狀況。根據代表申請人的法律援助署所呈交的一份的報告，陳醫生檢驗過申請人後作出以下的結論：

“Further in-patient psychiatric treatment is indicated until his paranoid disorder is under good control and he gains adequate insight to his psychiatric illness including the need of regular psychiatric treatment. The duration of treatment to achieve these goals cannot be estimated at this juncture and regular reassessment at reasonable intervals will throw more light onto this aspect."

10. 陳醫生亦指出他未能正確預計申請人何時可以恢復精神狀況。由此可以看出，四位醫生曾經在不同時間檢驗申請人的精神狀況，作出的結論就是申請人患有的精神病尚未康復，而且這種精神病可以引致申請人有暴力的傾向，因此他們亦不約而同地不能決定申請人何時可以康復，所以在現階段未能決定申請人在治療中心需要羈留多久。

11. 基於上述的報告，本庭認為在申請人尚未完全康復前釋放申請人對大眾及對申請人自己亦會做成很大的危險。法庭亦不能預計何時可以釋放申請人。因此為了大眾及申請人的安全，不宜定下任何羈留的期限。有關條例是有機制按時評估他的精神狀況以決定何時釋放他。基於上述的理由，本庭不批准上訴申請許可。