HKSAR v. LAU PING

HCMA 410/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM TMCC 749/2004)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one charge of Criminal Damage. The facts showed she was a former kitchen worker in a restaurant and had been dismissed in 2002. On 8 March 2004, she suddenly appeared in the restaurant and pulled the tablecloths from tables damaging china and utensils. Staff managed to subdue her until she was arrested.

2. The Magistrate considered it appropriate to make a 3 month Hospital Order and it is against that order the Appellant now appeals on the ground the sentence was too severe. She told the court that she had had an abortion while she was in hospital and wished to have treatment and recuperate from the operation outside. She had a very young son for whom she had to care, as well as having to support her elderly mother.

3. The Magistrate knew the Appellant had been brought to court from Castle Peak Hospital where she had been receiving treatment and so remanded her, initially, for 2 psychiatric reports as to her fitness to plead. The reports confirmed she was fit to plead and having heard mitigation and considered the reports, the Magistrate imposed a Hospital Order ordering the Appellant be detained in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for 3 months.

4. The Magistrate knew the Appellant had a clear record. He noted that he was asked to consider a fine despite the contents of the 2 psychiatric reports. The reports showed that the Appellant had been known to the mental health services since at least July 2002 and had been repeatedly admitted to hospital for treatment of Bipolar Affective Disorder. The psychiatrist who provided the last report took the view the Appellant was suffering a relapse of that condition and for that reason recommended 3 months inpatient treatment.

5. The Magistrate considered that acting on the recommendation of the psychiatrists was the most suitable method of dealing with the Appellant and made the order. He noted that the welfare of the Appellant's child during hospitalization had been dealt with when the Appellant appeared before him on the first occasion.

6. The Magistrate made what appears to be an entirely proper order in the circumstances, and I have no reason to interfere with it. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.