HKSAR v. LUN KWONG KEUNG

DCCC1393/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1393 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted arson, contrary to sections 60(1) and (3) and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.  The facts admitted by the Defendant disclosed that in the night of 18 November 2010, the Defendant entered the lobby of Shui On Centre, Wan Chai. The Defendant asked to see the Chairman of the Shui On Group but was told that he needed to make a prior appointment. To that, the Defendant responded by saying that he was there to burn down Shui On. The Defendant then walked towards a desk and poured thereon some petrol from a barrel which he was carrying. The Defendant took out a lighter and attempted to ignite the petrol. Fortunately, he did not succeed. The Defendant tried to flee but was subdued by the security guards of the centre. Under caution by the police, the Defendant repeated that he was there to set fire.

3.  The Defendant was born in Vietnam and is now aged 53. He came to Hong Kong illegally in 1976 which resulted in his having a conviction of “unlawful remaining”. He was fined on that occasion. After coming to Hong Kong, the Defendant has been in gainful employment. He has worked in construction sites for about 10 years and he once set up his own estate firm. However, during the SARS period, the firm was closed down. Since then, he had been working as a taxi driver, earning about HK$12,000 per month. The Defendant is now divorced. He has a daughter who is being taken care of by his ex-wife.

4.  The Defendant is a drug abuser and he has been suffering from schizophrenia. Owing to his medical problem, he has been admitted to Castle Peak Hospital before.

5.  In view of the Defendant’s medical history, I adjourned sentence to today and I asked for two psychiatric reports to be prepared in order to see if a hospital order is recommended.

6.  Now, I have the two reports with me. Both psychiatrists recommend that a Hospital Order of 4 months be imposed.

7.  Dr. W. K. Choi is of the view that the Defendant is a stimulant abuser and is suffering from schizophrenia. In addition, it was stated in Dr. Choi’s report dated 30 November 2010 that,

“4.  Mental state examination found that he was disheveled and preoccupied, and his affective response was unusually restricted. Florid psychotic symptoms in the form of auditory hallucination, delusion of grandioseness (sic), and delusion of persecution and passivity were elicited, and he had poor insight towards his illness. Regarding the index offence, he managed to give his own account in a coherent manner. He said he was distressed (sic) at that night, as the voices kept on asking him to be a gigolo. He believed that the voices were sent from the persecutors from the company, and he therefore wanted to do something to give them warnings (sic).  ….”

8.  A similar account as to what happened on the day of the offence was also contained in Dr. W. Y. Wong’s report.

9.  At present, Dr. Choi’s opinion is this,

“3.  Although LUN showed some improvement in this mental state, the illness is still not yet in satisfactory remission. Given his dangerousness and poor insight, further period of inpatient treatment is still required. …”  

10.  Similarly, Dr. Wong concluded in his report that,

“8.  In my opinion, the Defendant is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. He had acted under the influence of persecutory delusions. Despite improvement after treatment with antipsychotic medication, he is still harboring residual psychotic symptoms. Further in-patient treatment is indicated.  … “

11.  It is clear in this case that the Defendant requires treatment rather than punishment. On the materials before me, while the Defendant has no history of displaying violence, he was, on one previous occasion, found to have set some towels alight with a cigarette while at home. Therefore, the Defendant will very probably pose a danger to the community if he is not given proper treatment.

12.  Having considered all the circumstances of this case, including the nature of the offence, the Defendant’s past medical history, as well as the doctors’ recommendations and opinions, I am of the view that for the protection of the public and in the interest of the Defendant, the most appropriate method to deal with him is to have a Hospital Order for a period of 4 months imposed under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136, and to have him detained in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for the treatment.

13.  So, in respect of the charge to which the Defendant has pleaded guilty, he is sentenced to a hospital order for a period of 4 months.