R. v. CHUNG CHI KWONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 585
(Criminal)

___________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Liu, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted on 10 November 1995 for twice robbing banks and on the latter occasion with an imitation firearm. His condition suggested to the court that he would require psychiatric reports. A report was accordingly obtained from Dr Green as well as from Dr Yuen.

2. The object of the exercise was not to penalise the applicant but to look for a way so that he could be properly treated. Both doctors came to the opinion that he suffers from abnormality of mind, but certified the applicant fit to plead in a criminal court.

3. The applicant then experienced hallucinations, visually and in vision. The diagnosis of each of the doctors differs slightly in medical terms. The causations found by these doctors were dissimilar, but both agreed that he required medical treatment and that for his own good he had to be confined to hospital for a lengthy period. In the words of Dr Green, he would have to be detained in that sense for "a relatively long time". Dr Yuen proposed a period of three to four years. Pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance, the court was left with little alternative but to, for the good of the applicant, make a hospital order for a term of four years.

4. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence and he has set out his own grounds in support of his application. In his condition, the Director of Legal Aid properly invited Mr Poll to represent him at today's hearing.

5. Counsel refers to a confidential memo from Dr Yuen to the Director of Legal Aid, bearing the date 6 January 1995. On an evaluation of his condition, the doctor concludes that the applicant is not fit to enjoy an earlier release at the moment. The applicant takes issue with some of the comments and conclusions reached by Dr Yuen.

6. Having discharged his duty to the court, Mr Poll accepts that there is no real ground for the application.

7. We have heard what has been said to us by the applicant himself. We have noted his plea. Nevertheless, his application fails for the reasons I have given. The applicant has the right to a periodical review under the Medical Health Ordinance, and he can rest assured that the authority will see to it that he would not be detained any longer than necessary. In the circumstances, the application is refused.