HKSAR v. MAHMOOD AHMED

HCMA 890/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 2420 OF 2003)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of "Criminal Damage" and one charge of "Possession of an Offensive Weapon" and he was sentenced to 4 months' hospital order and 1 day's imprisonment respectively. The Appellant today appeals against the hospital order only.

2. The Appellant had applied for legal aid and Miss Chow represented him on instructions from legal aid but only to assist the court, so the Appellant submitted his own grounds of appeal.

3. On the day of the offence, the Appellant was on a ferry from Central to Cheung Chau and all of a sudden, he produced a vegetable knife and violently hit and smashed the window panes on the ferry. This was because the Appellant said he had had a quarrel with his girlfriend and he was in a bad mood.

4. The learned Magistrate who convicted the Appellant then called for two psychiatric reports. Dr Lui reported that the Appellant was suffering from mental illness namely, mania with psychotic manifestations and recommended a 4-month hospital order. The other doctor, Dr Choi was informed by the Appellant that he had intended to chop his girlfriend with the knife. Dr Choi was of the opinion that the Appellant was in relapse of his affected disorder currently exhibiting prominent and psychotic manifestations and he recommended a period of in-patient treatment of 4 to 6 months.

5. In passing sentence, the learned Magistrate took into account the plea of the Appellant, his antecedents and also the mitigation by his duty lawyer, but he came to the conclusion that the reason for the offence being committed by the Appellant was due to his psychiatric illness. So therefore in order to both protect the Appellant and the people in Hong Kong, he decided that a short period of a stay in hospital is the most appropriate.

6. The Appellant today asks that his sentence be reduced to allow him to return to Pakistan because his mother is ill and he says that he is willing to pay a fine. But this is not a valid ground of appeal because in an appeal against sentence, I have to look at whether the Magistrate in sentencing the Appellant had made a mistake or whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and I do not find that here. So the appeal is dismissed.