HKSAR v. HUI YAU FOO

DCCC 702/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 702 OF 2013

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant appeared before me two weeks ago and pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  The particulars of offence aver that the three charges now before me all happened on the same day, on 14 May 2013, in the Kwun Tong and Sau Mau Ping area, where the defendant had unlawfully and maliciously wounded three different victims with intent to do them grievous bodily harm.

3.  According to the Summary of Facts which has been admitted by the defendant, the modus operandi of the three charges were very similar. 

4.  It all happened in a short space of time between 9:15 am to 9:45 am. The three victims were pedestrians in the road.  When they were walking on the street, suddenly they all felt pain at the back of their thighs, and they saw the defendant holding a cutter cut open their trousers and cause injuries to their bodies.

5.  The victims of Charge 2 and 3 were husband and wife, and at about 10 am on the same day, an off-duty police officer saw the two victims, and they pointed out to the officer about the attack.  The officer then chased after the defendant and finally the defendant was intercepted at about 10.06 am on the same day.

6.  Upon seeing the police, the defendant once attempted to flee but he was stopped.  After the body search was conducted, a cutter was found in the right pocket of the defendant’s trousers.

7.  Under caution, the defendant said he thought someone tried to rob him and pour corrosive liquid on him therefore he attacked the person with the cutter. He continued to state that someone in Tsui Ping Estate had tried to pour corrosive liquid on him and he cut the person with the cutter.

8.  The three victims were sent to hospital after the incident.  The husband and wife victims were discharged on the same day but the first victim was admitted to hospital for one night.  The victim for the 1st charge suffered two cut wounds on the left thigh and right thigh.  22 stitches were applied.  The victim on Charge 2 had cut wounds on his right buttock, left mid-thigh posterior and right thigh posterior.  22 stitches were applied whereas for the final victim on Charge 3, cut wounds on the back of his bilateral thighs and 29 stitches were applied.

9.  It is clear that none of the victims know the defendant.

Record and background of the defendant

10.  The defendant is aged 46 years old.  He is a divorcee.  In the past, he has two similar convictions and he had just been imposed with a hospital order back in July this year in the magistracy.  The defendant came to Hong Kong in 1972, when he was 6 for family unity.  He was married but he is now divorced, with no children.  He used to be working as a truck driver but in the last three years, he lost his job due to his mental state.

11.  As a result of his conviction, I have on the last occasion obtained two psychiatric reports with a view to impose a hospital order.  Both reports recommended to the court that the defendant should serve a hospital order for a period of 9 to 12 months and that he could serve his sentence at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.  Both psychiatrists who saw the defendant concluded that he suffers from schizophrenia and they both opined that at the time of offence, he was impaired by his active psychotic symptoms.

12.  Although the defendant had received psychiatric treatment since May this year, for the other offences, according to the opinion of Dr Chow, the defendant currently still has residual psychotic symptoms and his insight remains limited.  In view of his current mental state and unpredictably high violent risk under psychotic influence, further psychiatric inpatient treatment for medication adjustment and monitoring is necessary.

13.  As for the other doctor, Dr Chan, he similarly opines that the defendant suffers from a serious mental disorder, namely paranoid schizophrenia.  Although Dr Chan opines that the defendant’s condition has become better with treatment, further inpatient observation to consolidate improvement and to strengthen his insight is needed.

14.  Both psychiatrists therefore recommended a period of hospital order for 9 to 12 months.

Sentencing considerations

15.  The three offences with which the defendant was convicted were no doubt serious offences.  The victims, who did not previously know the defendant, were savagely attacked and meaninglessly by the defendant on the street.  What the defendant had done no doubt had constituted a danger to himself and also to other citizens in the community.  What he had done had displayed unpredictable behaviour and also shown that he had poor judgment.  If the defendant was not suffering from any psychotic disease and if his judgment was not impaired, the present offences would have easily attracted an overall sentence of about 4 years even if the defendant had pleaded guilty.

16.  Of course, the defendant is a mental patient.  His conduct and behaviour could not be judged therefore as an ordinary person because his judgment has been seriously impaired due to his disease.

17.  But the court also has a duty to ensure that the defendant would not pose a further threat and danger to the society.  The defendant had just been ordered with a hospital order back in July and he still had about 2 months to serve in order and complete his current 6 months’ hospital order.  Now the two psychiatrists in this case only recommend a period of 9 to 12 months from today.

18.  In my mind, the recommendations on the duration of the hospital order are far from sufficient to reflect the gravity of the matter and especially because Dr Chow was of the opinion that the defendant had an unpredictably high violent risk under psychotic influence.

19.  Therefore, I am of the firm view that a longer period of hospital order is important both for the well being of the defendant as well as the safety of the members of the public.

20.  After taking all these factors into account, I therefore order a hospital order for 24 months in relation to all three charges.  It is only hoped that the defendant, with a longer period of treatment under the close supervision of the psychiatrists in a psychiatric centre, can have his mental condition greatly improved and not to constitute a further threat to the members of the public in the future after he is released.