HKSAR v. FAN LUNG MAN

CACC 215/1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 1992

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 601 OF 1990)

____________________

____________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Stuart-Moore, VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 13 December 1990, the Applicant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of causing an explosion likely to endanger life, contrary to section 53 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. Originally, he had pleaded not guilty to that charge.

2. Plainly, the Applicant had a serious psychiatric condition. After consideration by Judge Caird of psychiatric reports, the Applicant was placed on probation for two years with a condition that he should attend monthly psychiatric counselling and receive such medical and other treatment as directed.

3. The Applicant was brought back to court on 6 May 1992 for a breach of the conditions of his probation order. On 20 May 1992, the judge sentenced the Applicant to detention, by way of a hospital order pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136, at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a period of nine months. It had emerged from reports which were placed before the judge that the Applicant had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia since about 1988 and that he required in-patient treatment at the psychiatric centre for that period of time.

4. Despite the plea of guilty which the Applicant had eventually entered to the charge, he sought leave to appeal against his conviction in June 1992. On 16 October 1992, he abandoned that application but he now seeks leave to have his abandonment treated as a nullity. In a short affirmation in support of this application, he made reference amongst other things to his failure to obtain legal aid for the appeal proceedings which, according to him, was a factor which led him to abandon his original application. He has added nothing of materiality today.

5. There are no grounds for treating the Applicant's abandonment of his earlier application for leave to appeal against conviction as a nullity. That application is, therefore, dismissed.

6. In addition, the Applicant has applied, over twelve years out of time, for leave to appeal against his sentence.

7. It appears that the Applicant may never have fully recovered and is still receiving outpatient psychiatric attention at hospital. However, reading from a most helpful report provided by Dr Wong Meng-kong, under whose outpatient care the Applicant has been for almost eight years, it appears that after the Applicant was released from Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on 19 February 1993, he was then admitted to Castle Peak Hospital until 11 June 1993, at which time he was conditionally discharged from there. Apparently, he is still subject to the conditions of that discharge.

8. The order in the District Court has long since taken effect, although the Applicant is apparently labouring under the misapprehension that he is still the subject of the District Court order. If he has a complaint, it appears it is with the Hospital Authority and, in letters shown to us today, the Applicant has indicated that he has commenced the complaint process with them.

9. So far as this application is concerned, it is dismissed.