It appears that the deceased had been living happily with the defendant for a number of years in the flat that they had purchased together in joint ownership.
The defendant’s background reveals him as someone who had worked all his adult life, most recently, for about 12 years, he had been a taxi driver. He has never been in any form of trouble.
But in January 2013, he was involved in a traffic accident, which was not his fault, and this triggered a series of events leading up to the terrible killing about which we have heard in this case. The accident resulted in insomnia and it was bad enough to have caused him to be in an accident which was his fault. Indeed, he was going to be prosecuted for careless driving, and all of this made his insomnia even worse.
He was 64, he found himself unable to concentrate when driving. In the event, he decided that he would have to sell his taxi and his taxi licence to avoid having another accident. Some sort of mental turmoil is apparently shown by the fact that he, shortly afterwards, bought his taxi licence and taxi back again at a loss.
In the meantime, the overall good relationship which he had with the deceased began to give rise to problems related to finances.
On the day before the killing, the defendant transferred $2 million to his son. On the same day, he transferred $1.3 million to his partner, the deceased, to add to the $700,000 he had already given her. He later told Dr Lui that this was to buy peace, as he put it.
The defendant’s killing of the deceased on the very next day, that is 28 November 2013, between 8 and 8.30 in the morning, was utterly horrific.
The weapon he used was a large chopper. He inflicted numerous deep wounds to the deceased’s face and head. In addition, it is quite clear from the large number of defensive injuries inflicted on the deceased’s arms and her hands that she had struggled for some time against this murderous attack. On her arms alone, there were over 90 cuts and wounds. Her hands, including her palms, were covered in additional cuts and wounds. Some of these were very deep, and a finger had been completely amputated, and another was hanging off, virtually severed.
The injuries to the head and the face covered almost the whole skull, front and back. The photographs reveal the extent of the appalling injuries which were inflicted on the deceased. Some of these were very deep. Perhaps the worst of the injuries had left an area of the skull measuring 17 centimetres by 4 centimetres, completely detached. Part of the brain had spilt out from that gaping wound that was left at the crime scene.
When he was received at Siu Lam, nursing records showed that he was in a state of depression. That was on 30 November 2013. In fact, his condition then worsened, so that on 26 December 2013, he was put into a protective room, because he had expressed suicidal ideas. He was on antidepressants and antipsychotic medication at this stage.
Now, Dr Bonnie Siu, under whose care the defendant has been throughout, made a report on 22 May this year, in which she stated at paragraph 6, and I am going to quote, paragraph 6, 22 May report:
“Fung has been suffering from depression and he is currently on antidepressant medication, namely Remeron, 30 milligrammes every night. Despite an improvement to his mood, after psychiatric treatment, his mood is still on the low side, and his sleep is not satisfactory, and he still needs to receive psychiatric inpatient treatment at Siu Lam. The prognosis of his depression is fair.”
Similarly, Dr Lui, who has also treated the defendant for some time. In his report dated 28 April 2015, paragraph 9, he says this:
“Fung was suffering from mental illness, anxiety disorder, evolving into a depressive illness at the time of the offence. He was in a state of depression when I examined him in early December 2013. From the record, his mental condition then deteriorated, and he was suicidal. Dr Bonnie Siu, my colleague, has been attending to Fung for the past 16 months, and she is, of course, in a better position to report on progress. He has come a long way, and accepts responsibilities for what he has done. The prognosis is fair, but as depression is a recurrent illness, prone to relapse, especially in the face of stress, it is essential that Fung be followed up and maintained on medication on a long-term basis.”
Now, with those findings in mind, I decided to order further reports to find out whether, in particular, the extent to which the defendant might pose a danger to the public in future was a real fear, and if so what course would be recommended for the defendant.
As it turns out, Dr Siu and Dr Lui are satisfied that the defendant does require inpatient treatment at Siu Lam and they have suggested in a new report just a few days ago, as follows, and I am just going to turn to Dr Siu first. In her statement dated 5 June at paragraph 6, at the bottom of the page, page 2:
“He still needs to receive psychiatric inpatient treatment at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. His depression is of a relapsing nature, and the risks to the public would be high if he was in relapse of his depression. If the court sees fit, I would respectfully recommend a hospital order of an unspecified period under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for treatment of his mental illness for his own benefit and the safety and protection of other people. He could serve this hospital order at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. His future discharge from the Centre shall be determined and regularly reviewed by the mental health review tribunal, and he probably needs a conditional discharge in future if a discharge from the centre is recommended by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.”
Dr Lui, in a report dated 8 June, which is just yesterday, it says in the 3rd paragraph of this report that:
“The defendant is suffering from psychotic depression, a recurrent mental disorder liable to relapse, especially if the patient is off medication. In a relapse, earlier patterns of symptoms often reappear. And in the case of Fung, this would mean a certain degree of unpredictability of behaviour and risks of violence. Psychiatric treatment is necessary, under supervision, for a very long time.”
Again, he recommends an order under Section 45, without limit of time.
And so it is apparent that hospital treatment is appropriate in this case. It is important for members of the deceased’s family, as well as the defendant himself, to understand that if it had not been for the defendant’s mental disorder, this most horrifying killing would never have occurred. Therefore, it is not to punish the defendant, as Mr Chui, on behalf of the defendant said, it is to facilitate his treatment that a hospital order needs to be made, and that is only possible because the condition is treatable.
It has to be said, however, that the nature of this attack, coming as it did after a blameless life, and a generally happy relationship with the deceased, makes this, to the layman at any rate, a somewhat mystifying offence, because there is no suggestion here of schizophrenia. And once more, the defendant has no history of psychiatric illness before this.
Actually, the way that Dr Lui put it in his, on 28 April, Dr Lui did make reference to this, when he said:
“What happened at the time of the said offence is uncertain. There could have been a trigger, or he just snapped. He attacked and killed the victim in a frenzy.”
The defendant, for his part, told the police that a voice had told him to chop the deceased to death, and he then said that he lost his mind, and saw a “big grey bear” instead of the defendant, and he chopped the bear to death, as otherwise the bear would attack him.
Ms Crebbin was asked if she would just ensure that we have a full understanding of the matter, by checking today with one of the two psychiatrists, that treatment in hospital rather than in prison was required, and it is quite clear that it is necessary. Indeed, it has been confirmed that what, in fact, the defendant has, is a severe mental illness, and she told me, coupled with psychosis, and so the place for the defendant is a hospital rather than the prison.
I am firmly of the belief that it would be most unwise to bind the doctors to achieving success in their treatment of the defendant to a specified period of time.
Now, Mr Fung, I have decided, both in your interest and in the interest of the public, that I must make an order under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136. I am satisfied, on the written evidence of two registered medical practitioners that you are a mentally disordered person. I am also satisfied that the nature and degree of your mental disorder warrants your detention in the Correctional Services Department Psychiatric Centre.
Having regard to all of the circumstances, in particular, the nature of this offence, I am satisfied that the most suitable method of disposing of your case, as I indicated earlier, is by means of an order under this Section. Accordingly, I will authorise, under the hospital order that I now make, that you should be detained at the Correctional Services Psychiatric Centre, having been told today that arrangements have been made for your reception there.
I do not think, on the evidence of the doctors before me, and in all the circumstances of this case, that it can confidently be said that you will be fit for release within a specified period. Accordingly, the order I make is one without limit of time. It would simply not, in my opinion, be sensible in such a serious case to confine the doctors to a time limit.
I should point out to you that each year, the Mental Health Tribunal will review your case with a view to deciding whether you can safely be allowed back into the community.