COURT: The defendant was charged with one count of murder, and subsequently the prosecution was willing to accept her plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. And I approve of that because of what is revealed in the psychiatric reports.
It is a very tragic case. The defendant and the deceased were married in 1977, and they had a daughter and a son who are now adults. However, the defendant was known to the mental health services since 1986 with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, characterised by presentation of suspiciousness and referential delusion.
As pointed out in the facts, the defendant began suspecting her husband of having an affair in about August 2020. On 24 February 2021, the defendant and her daughter and her husband had dinner together in the flat. The defendant’s daughter went to sleep at about 1 am, and at that time the deceased had already slept, but the defendant had not yet gone to bed.
Then, at about 4.20 am, the deceased woke his daughter up by yelling and requested the daughter to call the police. His daughter, at that time, saw that her father had subdued the defendant on the floor and was bleeding. And the deceased told his daughter that he had been chopped by the defendant. They, then, waited for the police to arrive. Police arrived at about 4.32 am and the deceased’s head was bleeding. And at that time, the deceased pointed to the defendant and said that the defendant had chopped him when he was sleeping.
Subsequently, the ambulancemen arrived at about 4.36 am and it was discovered that the deceased’s head had a wound at the back of his head. He was subsequently taken to a hospital and was certified dead at 5.41 am.
When the defendant was arrested, under caution, she admitted that she had chopped the defendant because he had a mistress.
The forensic pathologist found many wounds on the head, neck, upper and lower limbs of the deceased. The direct cause of death was certified to be massive bleeding due to chop wounds to the head.
As it has been said, the defendant was known to the mental health services since 1986, and she was, in fact, admitted to Kwai Chung Hospital between February and June 2001. She was subsequently released and discharged and given medication and had to regularly attend follow-ups at the psychiatric centre.
Subsequently, after the defendant was arrested, she was remanded in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. And two psychiatrists, Dr Vanessa Wong and Dr Dorothy Tang, had subsequently provided their psychiatric opinions to the court.
According to Dr Wong, she agreed that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia and that she suffered from delusions, obsessional jealousy, and paranoid personality disorder, and that the defendant at that time was likely to have been acting out in response to the intense emotions as a result of her delusions. So Dr Wong’s opinion was that, at the time, the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of the mind due to a mental health condition, namely, schizophrenia, which substantially impaired her mental responsibility.
Dr Tang also agreed with Dr Wong that, at the time, the defendant was indeed suffering from schizophrenia and was of the opinion that, at the time of the incident, she had a relapse.
So those were the opinions of both psychiatrists, which led to the subsequent acceptance by the prosecution to the plea of manslaughter.
Now, in mitigation, Mr Mughal has said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. As he pointed out, the defendant has a clear record and came to Hong Kong in 1977 from Indonesia. Subsequently, the son moved away and the daughter continued living with her parents at the premises.
The letters submitted by Mr Mughal on behalf of the defendant from both children speak highly of their mother. It is very apparent from their letters that they were able to grow up in a loving family. The letter from Reverend Poon spoke of the defendant having been comforted during her incarceration by reading the bible and getting solace from her belief in Christianity.
As a result of the plea of the defendant, I called for an updated psychiatric report from two psychiatrists as to their recommendations in relation to my sentencing.
The first report is from Dr Samuel Tsang, who is a visiting psychiatrist at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. And Dr Tsang speaks of the fact that the defendant’s mental condition had improved partially with anti-psychotic treatment and her paranoia towards inmates and staff in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre subsided. However, as Dr Tsang noted in paragraph 9 of his report, her belief regarding her husband’s infidelity persisted.
And in Dr Tsang’s opinion, although the defendant has improved partially after her period of treatment in Siu Lam, she is still deluded regarding her husband’s infidelity and her insight is partial. So Dr Tsang is of the opinion that further psychoeducation and rehabilitation are necessary and he would recommend a hospital order for an unspecified period under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. And the Mental Health Review Tribunal would carry out ongoing reviews and the second-stage treatment in a mental hospital could be arranged when deemed suitable.
The next psychiatric report is from Dr Dorothy Tang, who is also a visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. She agrees with Dr Tsang that although the accused had partially improved mental condition with medication treatment during her remand in Siu Lam, further inpatient psychiatric management is warranted for insight installation and rehabilitation. She was also of the opinion that an appropriate sentence would be one of a hospital order for an unspecified period and that she could serve her sentence in Siu Lam and ongoing review would be carried out by the
Mental Health Review Tribunal and she could be transferred to a mental hospital for intense rehabilitation in the future if deemed suitable.
I do note, as Mr Mughal pointed out, that the defence’s psychiatrist does also recommend a hospital order, but for a specified period. And Mr Mughal has also cited two cases in relation to cases where a determinate hospital order was given. However, each case turns on its own facts, and in the circumstances, I am satisfied that the recommendation of both Dr Tsang and Dr Tang should be followed.
And therefore, I order that the defendant be sent to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under a hospital order for an indeterminate period.