HKSAR v. MAR PAK CHONG

DCCC1256/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1256 OF 2009

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  I convicted the defendant, Mr Mar pak-chong, after trial of two counts of wounding with intent, charge 1 and charge 2. Both offences took place on 28 August 2009. The victim of charge 1, Miss Fong, worked as a secretary in the law firm Eddie P L Law and Company. The victim of charge 2, Mr Eddie P L Law, was the sole proprietor of the law firm and he was a practicing solicitor at the material time.

2.  The defendant is a 72 years old American-Chinese.  He came to Hong Kong in August 2009.  He approached PW2, Mr Law, and asked Mr Law to handle his complaint against some American companies. The defendant complained that the American companies had stolen money from him.  The defendant asked Mr Law to make a press statement against the American companies in order to affect the share price of the companies.  The defendant would then conduct some short selling and make some money in order to recoup the loss he suffered.  Mr Law refused to do what the defendant asked him to do on the ground that what he was asked to do was unlawful in that the acts amounted to insider trading or market manipulation.  He refused to take up the case from the defendant.

3.  On the day in question, the defendant turned up at the law firm armed with a fruit knife.  He was first received by PW1, Miss Fong.  Suddenly the defendant attacked PW1 with the fruit knife.  The defendant did so in order to force Mr Law to come out from his room.  PW1 was injured and she fled into an office on the same floor.

4.  PW2 then came out of his room and he encountered the defendant.  Again the defendant attacked PW2, Mr Law, with the fruit knife.  Mr Law tried to defend himself with some file covers but he was injured during the attack. 

5.  Miss Fong was taken to the A&E Department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital and she sustained multiple stab wounds over her face, trunk and limbs.  She was admitted to the surgical ward for further treatment and she was discharged on 12 September 2009.  Mr Law was admitted to the A&E Department of Kwong Wah Hospital and he sustained an 8 cm transverse left submandibular wound with active bleeding and an underlying bone was exposed.  He had also a 5 cm superficial laceration over the left lower abdomen.

6.  The defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong. Before sentence, I called for two psychiatric reports.  Dr Robin Ho had examined the defendant back in August this year when she prepared a psychiatric report as to whether defendant was fit to plead to the charge.  She examined the defendant again in November.  In the psychiatric report of Dr Ho dated 5 November 2010 Dr Ho states that her opinion and recommendations remain unchanged from her last report.  The defendant is still suffering from a psychotic illness, most likely delusional disorder.  She observed that the defendant appeared to be mentally unwell for years.  The defendant has multiple fixed paranoid and persecutory delusions.  Dr Ho opines that the last offences were likely related to the defendant’s poor mental state at the material time. The defendant has no insight and strongly denied suffering from any mental illness.  Dr Ho is of the view that the defendant has a very high propensity to violence and remains agitated when talking about his psychotic symptoms.  In conclusion, Dr Ho recommend in-patient treatment for the defendant in a secured setting.  Dr Ho considers it necessary that the defendant should receive some in-patient treatment, which is in the interest of the health and safety of the defendant as well as for the safety of others.  She recommends a Hospital Order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for at least one year.  She states that the defendant could serve his Hospital Order at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. 

7.  Dr Chow Kit-wan states in his psychiatric report that the defendant is suffering from delusional disorder with florid paranoid delusion against the US Government and the two investment companies.  Dr Chow states that the defendant was psychotic at the time of the offence and during the defendant’s remand at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre the defendant showed poor insight into his mental illness and he refused all kinds of investigation and treatment.  In view of the defendant’s florid  paranoid delusion and high violent risk under influence of psychotic symptoms, Dr Chow recommends compulsory psychiatric treatment for the defendant and recommends a Hospital Order for a period of 9 to 12 months.

8.  I am aware that since the defendant’s arrest on 28 August last year, the defendant has been in custody for over one year.  In sentencing the defendant I have considered the nature of the charges, the facts of the case as found by me, the medical injuries of PW1 and PW2 and the recommendations made by Dr Ho and Dr Chow. 

9.  The defendant in mitigation takes issues with the observations made by the psychiatrist.  The defendant said he is suffering from the paranoid delusions as stated by the doctors he would not have been able to make the money he had made.  The defendant attacked PW1 and PW2 with a fruit knife.  Apparently the defendant thought his lawyer, i.e. PW2, had betrayed him and had sold his information to the American companies.  The defendant claimed he had to do what he did in order to survive.  He attacked PW1 in order to force Mr Law, the solicitor, to come out. 

10.  In my judgment the present case was a serious case of wounding and I agree with Dr Ho that the offences were likely related to the mental state of the defendant at the material time.  The defendant’s conduct in court clearly shows that the defendant has no insight to his mental problem and I agree with Dr Ho that the defendant has a very high propensity to violence and he remains agitated when he talks about his psychotic symptoms.

11.  On the facts of this case, if I were to sentence the defendant to prison I would consider a starting point of not less than 3½ years’ imprisonment but the defendant is obviously a mentally disordered offender.  In sentencing the defendant I should approach the sentencing exercise on the basis that I should facilitate treatment in hospital where possible.  In the end I adopt the recommendations made by Dr Ho and Dr Chow in their reports.  It is in the interest of the defendant and also in the interest of society that the defendant should receive a Hospital Order and in-patient treatment at a mental hospital.

12.  For charge 1 and charge 2 I make a Hospital Order under sections 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance that the defendant should be detained at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre

and serve the Hospital Order there for 1 year. The sentences for charge 1 and 2 are to run concurrently.