HKSAR v. TANG Christophen

CACC 43/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 174 OF 1998)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Wong, J.A.:

1. The applicant was indicted for murder. He pleaded guilty before Gall, J. in the High Court to the lesser offence of manslaughter. His plea was accepted on the ground of diminished responsibility. The judge made a hospital order committing the applicant to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for an unspecified period pursuant to s. 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. He now seeks leave to appeal against that order.

2. This is a sad case. The deceased was the mother of the applicant. In the evening of 27 December 1997, Mr Tang Yuk-man, who was the husband of the deceased and the father of the applicant, went to Room 1326, Kwong Yan House, Kwong Fuk Estate, Taipo, where the deceased and the applicant resided. He went there to look for his wife and son as he had not been able to contact them over the phone in the past few days.

3. Upon arrival there, he could not open the main wooden door which appeared to be locked from inside. He then sought assistance from the Housing Department staff who in turn reported to the police. Whilst awaiting for the police, Mr Tang saw the applicant suddenly open the door, dash towards the staircases and disappear down the stairs despite his shouts to stop the applicant. The police arrived shortly afterwards and went into the premises with Mr Tang. Inside the premises, they found some blood stains in the middle of the sitting room. They also found a wardrobe placed against the toilet door. Eventually, they moved away the wardrobe and found the naked body of the deceased sprawling on her left side on the toilet floor, covered by a blood-stained quilt.

4. The applicant was arrested on 31 December, 1997 and under caution, he made a number of admissions to the police. He said that he had been persecuted and framed up by someone including his ex-schoolmate SO Ka-ka. He had been annoyed by such problem for a long time but his mother kept refusing to tell him who they were. As a result, he picked up a chopper and hit her body indiscriminately in the living room. Then, he locked her up inside the toilet using a wardrobe to block the toilet door for over a week. He had not given her any food since she was stranded in the toilet.

5. On 24 December, 1997 or so, he had not heard anything from her. One day, he found the toilet filled with his mother's excretions. Therefore, he used a hose to splash her body with cold water. Fearing that his mother would leave when he went to work, he moved a wardrobe to block the entrance of the toilet. In order to frighten her, he had thrown a glass bottle into the toilet. It was then broken into pieces. He remembered that the deceased had been dressed up but somehow on the day before 24 December, 1997, he discovered that she became naked. On another day, he realised that his mother might have died as her body was cold. That was why he was so frightened and refused to open the door when his father came to pay a visit. According to him, he did not kill people because of his mental illness. All he wanted to know was who had persecuted and framed him up. He had written a suicidal note on a piece of biscuit wrapping paper. However, he tore it up later fearing that the police might not believe him. Upon second thoughts, he wrote another suicidal note which was intended to show to other people.

6. In another statement, he said that around 6 p.m. on the 27 December, 1997, he left home and took some sleeping pills with a view to attempting suicide. He had thought of making a report to ICAC as he had long been disturbed and annoyed by somebody. But he did not make a report for fear that the police would simply take him to Castle Peak Hospital. He then went to Lantau Island. When he was asked about the cut wounds on the deceased's limbs, he admitted that those injuries were inflicted by him using a chopper as he wanted her to tell him who had been annoying him.

7. Dr Barry Charles Connell, a psychiatrist instructed by the Legal Aid Department, was called to give evidence before the judge and he was of the opinion that at the time of the offence, the applicant was suffering from Schizophrenia and he also told the judge that he was unable to say when the applicant could be cured of his mental illness. Dr S. H. Lui, a Government psychiatrist from Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, who had examined the applicant on a number of occasions over a period of time since January 1998, also formed the opinion that at the time of the offence, the applicant was most likely to have suffered from an abnormality of mind. Dr Lui recommended a hospital order for an unspecified period. Having read the medical reports of the two doctors and also heard the evidence of Dr Connell given in court, the judge made a hospital order for an unspecified period.

8. We do not think that in the circumstances the judge could have done otherwise. There was no other option that was open to him. Before us to-day, the applicant repeated what he had written in a letter as his grounds of appeal and said that he had witnesses who could prove that he was persecuted and asked the court to find the witnesses for him.

9. Mr Mullick, who is instructed by the Legal Aid Department to appear before us as amicus, informs the Court that he is unable to advance any argument in favour of the appeal. He further tells us that the fact that he is in Court is because certain allegations had been made by the applicant against his trial counsel and the judge. We agree, and we are completely satisfied, that there are no foundations whatever in those allegations. Both Mr Stirling who appeared for the applicant at the trial and the judge had been acting properly and with exemplary fairness.

10. Judging from his appearance and the way he speaks to us, it is clear that the applicant is still harbouring delusions. He also has suicidal tendencies. It would be in his best interest as well as that of the community that he remains in hospital until his illness is completely cured. As to when he will be released, that must be a matter for the doctors and the Mental Health Tribunal but not for this Court or for counsel to say.

11. The application must be dismissed.