HKSAR v. TEE ZHI-YI, BRANDON

DCCC838/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 838 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of a charge of AOABH. The victim was his ex-girlfriend (PW1). They were both Hong Kong University Law students.

2.  The defendant was an exchange programme student from Singapore.  At the time of the offence, he has just completed the third years of the Law degree in the Hong Kong University.

3.  On the day in question, the defendant returned from Taiwan and met PW1 in central.  They then went back to his flat. According to PW1, the defendant pulled her hair and pushed her against the wall, pinned her down and used the blade of the bottle opener to cut her limbs.  The blade of the opener was about 1½ inches long.  PW1 stayed in his flat for four days and left the flat on her own accord.  She then went to police station to make a report. 

4.  Since then she has forgiven him.  She has recovered completely from these injuries.

5.  In mitigation, I was told that the defendant has a clear record.  His counsel also submits to me a large bundle of letters from all his friends and relatives in Singapore.  From all these letters I can tell that the defendant is a well-liked person amongst his peers.  He is supportive and helpful to his friends, and now in return their friends all wrote mitigating letters on his behalf.  I accept what his friends and relatives told me, that in normal social circumstances the defendant is a gentle and calm person.

6.  He is also a very intelligent and bright man. Had it not because of the present trial, he should be in the final year of his law degree in the Singapore National University.

7.  He has already secured a place in one of the top law firms in Singapore upon his graduation next summer.  His future looks bright and promising.  However, this incident should serve as a wake up call to the other side of his personality.

8.  The defendant and his family are all aware that he should receive counselling and I had read all the reports from Professor Peter Lee, Dr Josephine Wong and two government doctors.  All the reports came to the conclusion that the defendant is suffering from borderline personality disorder. 

9.  He had a number of relationships since the age of 16.  Out of these 10 or so relationships, four to five of them were very serious.  All the reports said that when he was involved in a relationship, he became totally dependant and emotionally attached to his girlfriends.  He was demanding, controlling and possessive.  He easily felt insecure, he was extremely sensitive to the idea of being rejected or abandoned. His mood swing varied from happy to very depressive.  He had a history of attempted suicide and became violent when faced with relationship problems. 

10.  The defendant has started to receive counselling in March this year.  Since June to October, he has attended at least 13 sessions of consultation with Dr Josephine Wong, the psychiatrist, and six other meetings with Professor Peter Lee, the psychologist.

11.  In Professor Peter Lee’s opinion, he needs intensive therapy over the next 2 years, while Dr Josephine Wong also opined that he needs to attend therapy sessions once a week for the next 12 to 18 months.

12.  The objective of the psychotherapy is to help him to gain insight into his borderline personality disorder problem to identify triggers for his mood instability and to develop skills to regulate his emotions and to handle interpersonal relationships. 

13.  It is in his own interest and it is in the public interest he should be treated, otherwise when he encounters the same situation again in the future he could pose as a danger to himself and to his partner.    

14.  As to whether the defendant should receive in-patient or out-patient treatment, the government doctor has no recommendation.

15.  Today, I have the benefit of hearing evidence from Professor Lee, who told me that the defendant and his family should receive counselling together to achieve a better result and success in a real life setting. 

16.  The defendant’s problem is interpersonal relationship with girlfriend.  That is no good to put him in a control setting because it lacks the real life setting that his parents cannot attend the sessions together with him.  He is a Singaporean citizen and the benefit of family and friends’ support will be greatly reduced.

17.  There are also numerous emails between Dr Lee and his parents concerning the welfare of the defendant. The parents have demonstrated their unlimited support and undertake to attend the counselling sessions together with the defendant.

18.  Dr Lee also has recommended Dr Brian Scott to the family and referred the case to the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology of the National University of Singapore.  

19.  On the other hand, the note from the National University of Singapore said that “ in the past experience the defendant would probably be able to resume his study, but he needs to subject to mandatory counselling or other restrictions.” 

20.  I am told he is going home with his family to Singapore this Saturday and he has also indicated through his counsel he is willing to continue to receive counselling and treatment to his problem.  

21.  Against this background and having heard the evidence from Dr Lee, I am mind to impose a sentence of 6 months suspended for a period of 2 years.  The purpose of the suspended sentence is to serve as a warning to the defendant.  When he comes back to Hong Kong and commits any crime and be convicted by the court, he needs to serve the 6 months sentence. 

22.  At the meantime I hope that he takes this opportunity to address his problem.  Dr Lee said that his problem can be treated.