HKSAR v. LAM PIK HAN

DCCC 352/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 352 OF 2013

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Wounding with intent". She used a chopper to chop a colleague at work.

Summary of Facts

2.  Mr. LAW (PW1) and the defendant were employees of a Chinese restaurant situated at 1^st Floor, Citiwalk, Tsuen Wan.  The defendant was a waitress, and PW1, a chef.  They had no grudges, disputes or love affair; they were just colleagues.

3.  About 4:30 pm on 22 January 2013, PW1 was on his meal break.  He sat at a table taking a nap by resting his upper body on the table.  Suddenly, he felt a severe pain at the back of his neck and woke up.  He saw the defendant standing on his right side holding a chopper and kept repeating "You harm my family members". She chopped PW1 again at the back of his neck.

4.  PW1 tried to ward off the attack and his right hand was chopped twice.  He then pushed the defendant away, stood up and left.  Unfortunately, he was tripped by a chair and fell onto the floor.  The defendant went forward and chopped PW1's right shank.  PW1 shouted for help.  The defendant kept repeating "You harm my family members".

5.  Other colleagues rushed over to stop the defendant.  She told them that PW1 went to her home to poison her family members.  They asked her to calm down and put down the chopper.  Meanwhile, the Police was alerted.

6.  PC 9736 arrested the defendant at the scene.  Under caution, she said "He always uses poison to harm me; today he poisoned me again just now and caused me to have abdominal pain.  I could not stand it, so I took a knife to chop him."

7.  PW1 received an emergency operation with multiple suturing performed.  He sustained the following injuries :-

(i) multiple chop wounds at neck;

(ii) 2 deep transverse posterior neck wounds, each longer than 10 cm;

(iii) open wound at right forearm involving tendon; and

(iv) deep laceration at right knee, leg and ankle.

Mitigation & Sentence

8. The defendant has a clear record. She is now 48, married with 2 adult children. Her daughter, aged 21, is mildly mentally handicapped.

9. Defence lawyer Mr. TANG submitted that the defendant has all along been a kind-hearted and gentle person. Up to this moment, due to her psychiatric illness, she still believes that PW1 had poisoned her and her family members, causing them abdominal pain. A bundle of mitigation documents (including the defendant's letter) was placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

10. The defendant told both psychiatrists that she believes she was poisoned by the chef who put odourless and colourless toxins into her food and eating utensils at work. She claimed that she saw him putting his hands in his pockets during lunch and she would suffer from abdominal pain after her meals. She also heard colleagues at work telling her that the chef had entered her home to poison her family members because they have likewise experienced abdominal discomfort. She admitted that she would chase the chef and chop him to death if she was not stopped by other colleagues.

11. Psychiatric reports reveal that the defendant is suffering from delusional disorder with a differential diagnosis of schizophrenia. She has active psychotic symptoms including delusion of persecution (being poisoned) and delusion of reference (being referred to by others, such as colleagues). Dr. SIU wrote "She is actively psychotic with high propensity to violence and she has limited insight to her mental illness. In-patient psychiatric treatment is necessary for her own safety and for the protection of other people." Similarly, Dr. LAM wrote "Despite medication titration during her remand period in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, she remained actively psychotic with fixed persecutory delusions towards her ex-colleagues." Both doctors recommended a 9-month Hospital Order.

12. This is indeed a sad case with unfortunate results. I have viewed some photographs depicting PW1's injuries. He seems to have recovered fully, and there is no evidence of any permanent disability. I understand that sentencing of wounding offences is case specific and there is no tariff as such; however, sentences in the range of 3 to 12 years' imprisonment are by no means uncommon.

13. It is plain that defendant is a psychiatric patient who needs professional in-patient treatment. Furthermore, at present, she poses a danger to the community. I am aware of the gravity of the charge, but cannot ignore the defendant's need for psychiatric treatment. Although a 9-month Hospital Order may seem to be a comparatively short period of incarceration, sentencing her to a prison term cannot meet her needs.

14. If the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment, she will be released into the community at the end of her prison term irrespective of her psychiatric condition. A Hospital Order, however, carries with it a proviso under section 47(2) of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap.136), which in effect stipulates that her release will be subject to medical opinion. This proviso offers a safeguarding mechanism which ensures that the defendant would not be released unless it is safe for her and the community to do so. In fact, Dr. LAM takes the view that the defendant is likely to require further hospitalization upon expiry of the Hospital Order for optimization of her mental condition with in-patient treatment and rehabilitation.

15. Based on the reasons stated above, I consider that it is in the community's best interest as well as the defendant's to make a Hospital Order in accordance with the psychiatrists' recommendations. Hence, I sentence the defendant to detention under a Hospital Order in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for 9 months. For the avoidance of doubt, the proviso under section 47(2) applies.