HKSAR v. YIU WING CHEONG

CACC 584/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 698/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Judge Hawkes to one count of wounding with intent and one count of arson with intent. The Judge made a hospital order of indefinite duration pursuant to s. 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this sentence, contending that the period of the hospital order should be fixed.

2. According to the agreed facts in the early hours of 15 June 1999 the applicant went into a cubicle adjoining the one he occupied on the roof top of a building in Fuk Lo Tsun Road and attacked the occupant with a 29 cm long cleaver. A struggle then ensued and quite serious injuries were sustained by both men. Following this the applicant returned to his cubicle and started a fire by setting alight some old clothes.

3. The applicant then left the building and hailed a taxi to take him to the Kwong Wah Hospital for treatment to his injuries. On the way to the hospital the taxi was stopped by police officers and the applicant was arrested. He was sent initially to the Kwong Wah Hospital for treatment and then treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

4. The victim of the attack was also treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. He was found to be suffering from a 12 cm long laceration over his left face, a stab wound over his lower abdomen and a 3 cm laceration over the back of his forearm.

5. The applicant admitted under caution that he had set fire to his clothes with the intention of burning the victim to death. The fire had been extinguished by other occupants before much damage had occurred.

6. The landlord of the premises had informed the police that prior to the incident the applicant had complained to him that noise from the victim's television set had disturbed him and that he could not endure this.

7. At the time of taking the applicant's pleas and sentencing him the Judge had before him a probation report and reports from two psychiatrists. The psychiatrists were both of the opinion that although the applicant was fit to plead he was suffering from schizophrenia. He was being treated with medication in an endeavour to alleviate his condition. However they were of the opinion that he was still actively psychotic and did not have an adequate insight into his mental illness. He had a propensity for repeating violence and was in need of further in-patient psychiatric treatment in a highly supervised environment. He constituted a danger both to himself and others. Accordingly they recommended a hospital order be made for his detention for a period not less than 6 months.

8. We also now have a further up-to-date psychiatric report in which Dr Chan has indicated:

"In view of the relapsing nature of his illness, the past history of serious violence, and his slow response to treatment, I believe he needs further in-patient hospital treatment to consolidate his progress. ..."

9. So far as his personal circumstances were concerned his wife had recently left him and taken their eight-year old son with her. He was living alone in the cubicle referred to.

10. His recent pattern of employment had been sporadic and one of the reasons why his wife had left him was on account of his inability to sufficiently support the family financially.

11. Be that as it may these offences were very serious. The applicant plainly has no insight into this. On several occasions he described the offences as "not very serious". It was entirely appropriate for the order to be of indefinite duration. The application is dismissed.