HKSAR v. CHO KING-CHUN

DCCC 19/2021

[2021] HKDC 1085

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 19 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a)  of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.  He also pleaded guilty to Charge 2, wounding, contrary to section 19 of the same Ordinance, and Charge 4, possession of offensive weapons contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228.  Charge 3, another wounding offence, was kept on the court file not to be dealt with unless there is leave from this court or the Court of Appeal. 

2.  The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts. At the time of these offences, he was a contract clerk of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department.  In late July 2020, his biannual contract was not renewed, which meant his last day of work fell on 31 August 2020. 

3.  On the last day of work, he attacked and injured several colleagues.  At about 2 pm that day, a Mr Choy who sat at his desk when he felt a hard object hit him from behind on the head.  He turned to see the defendant holding a chopper with his right hand just before he struck him again above the left eyebrow.  Mr Choy is the victim of Charge 1 and these are the particulars of that charge. 

4.  When this happened, another colleague, a Ms Poon, rushed over to pull Mr Choy away from the defendant.  She was slashed by the chopper wielded by the defendant across the right arm.  She heard him shouting, “Chop you to death,” at Mr Choy whilst hitting him with the chopper.  Ms Poon is the victim of Charge 2 and these are the particulars of that charge. 

5.  Other colleagues heard and saw the incident before rushing over to try and snatch the chopper from the defendant. He was later subdued on the ground and the police were informed.  Later during a search, two pairs of scissors were found in his trouser pocket.  These were the offensive weapons of Charge 4. 

6.  The defendant was arrested and cautioned after the police arrived.  And he said that the man he chopped had teased him, cost him his job, so he chopped him.  The woman intervened, so he chopped her as well.  The scissors found in his trousers pocket were for self-defence in case anyone snatched his chopper away from him. 

7.  On the following day, two further interviews were conducted under caution, two video-recorded interviews, in the presence of a social worker deemed an appropriate adult.  The defendant explained in full how he had worked in the same office for six years but was suddenly told his contract would not be renewed.  He blamed his direct superior for allocating all his work to others, making him redundant. 

8.  He had actually planned to chop his immediate supervisor or superior, but on that last day he was absent from the office, so he chopped Mr Choy instead.  Mr Choy had in the past teased him. He admitted all the offences charged in those interviews. 

9.  Mr Choy suffered from lacerations over his left eyebrow, right face, left chest wall, right forearm, left forearm and 3 fingers. He was treated and discharged on the same day with 7 days sick leave.  I have a set of photographs depicting injuries.  Photographs 1 to 32 were of Mr Choy and photographs 33 and 34 were of Ms Poon.  She suffered minor injuries but blood was drawn. 

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is a single, 39-year-old man who has a clear record.  He was educated and completed Form 5.  He has been employed as a clerk for many years.  He lives with his 80-year-old father.  In 2017, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and regularly treated at a psychiatric clinic.

11.  After his arrest and when he appeared before a magistrate, 2 psychiatric reports were obtained to determine if he was fit to plead.

12.  I have had sight of those 2 reports dated 10 and 14 September 2020.  Both psychiatrists diagnosed the defendant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, which was in relapse at that time.  The recommendation was for him to receive further compulsory psychiatric treatment and a hospital order for a period of 6 to 9 months imposed under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance was suggested. 

13.  After the defendant’s plea and conviction, I found it prudent to adjourn and call for 2 more psychiatric reports since the last ones were nearly a year old.  I have also taken into account that the defendant has been remanded in custody for almost one year now. 

14.  I have now heard full mitigation from Mr Chan and he has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant.  He reiterated that these offences were committed whilst he was suffering a relapse of his mental illness.  I was urged to take into account that although the facts and charges are very serious, the photographs show that the injuries suffered were in no way life-threatening or debilitating. 

15.  These 2 recent reports were written by 2 different psychiatrists who confirmed the schizophrenia diagnosis and relapse at the material time.  They are both of the opinion that although the defendant has been admitted to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre since the day of his arrest and treated, his mental state had only partially improved. 

16.  Both experts recommend further inpatient treatment to titrate his medications so as to optimise his mental state.  Both see that as necessary to stabilise his mental condition.  Both also suggest and recommend a hospital order for a period of 4 months and the defendant to continue to reside at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.  Both state that after the expiry of this hospital order, he could be certified to a psychiatric hospital for further rehabilitation and arrangement of a supervised residential placement could be made, if felt medically necessary. 

17.  On the face of it, these charges are very serious.  But luckily, the injuries inflicted by the defendant were not so serious that the victims have not fully recovered.  Clearly the defendant was suffering from a relapse of his schizophrenia at the material time.  

18.  I take into account he has been in custody on remand and receiving treatment for a year.  Two psychiatrists still recommend further treatment.  Reassuringly, there is a provision for confined supervision and further rehabilitation after his discharge from a hospital order, if imposed. 

19.  I have taken into account all the facts of the case, the injuries suffered, mitigation, his previous clear record and his psychiatric diagnosis.  This is clearly a case where the defendant needs treatment for his rehabilitation.  Treatment has been recommended and offered. Therefore, I find it appropriate in this case to consider a hospital order. 

20.  Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to a hospital order for a period of 4 months for Charges 1, 2 and 4, to be served concurrently.