HKSAR v. WONG SUI KUK

DCCC 756/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 756 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to the offence of wounding with intent, contrary to Section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2.  The facts show that the charge arises out of, what could be broadly described as a domestic incident and occurred largely as a result of the defendant’s mental illness.

3.  The victim in the case is the defendant’s husband and they are a couple who were married in 1985 in Mainland China.  They first came to live in Hong Kong in the year 2004 and lived at a residential unit in Ngau Tau Kok.

4.  The husband had noticed that for at least 20 years the defendant had been suffering from mental problems, and some 20 years ago she was, in fact, diagnosed with schizophrenia whilst in the Mainland.  She had been on medication but she had ceased taking that some five years ago. Following her ceasing taking the medicine, some disturbances in her behaviour had been noted, leading to disputes in which the police were called.

5.  The charge arises out of something that had occurred on 2 July last year, 2015, and PW1, who is the husband, had returned home and found the defendant behaving strangely, and at one stage she became emotional and attacked her husband.  A fruit knife was used during the attack and the victim was stabbed on the left arm and the waist.  There was a struggle which lasted four to five minutes.  Eventually, the defendant was disarmed and the police were called.

6.  The victim was seen at Queen Elizabeth Hospital on the same day.  There was a 2-centimetre-deep laceration on his left posterior shoulder, three 2-centimetre lacerations over his left lateral distal arm, and one 2-centimetre-deep laceration over the left loin at the lumbar 2nd and 3rd level.  The victim was hospitalised from 2 to 7 July and was subject to an operation on that day, of which stitches were applied.  It resulted in receiving sick leave from 2 July to 27 August.

7.  The defendant was, in fact, admitted to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre shortly after.

8.  She made various admissions to the police in respect of these matters.

9.  As far as background is concerned, that can be seen in the antecedent statement.  She has clear records.  She has never been convicted of any offences.  She is now aged 51.  There was a daughter who currently lives in the Mainland and she lived in Ngau Tau Kok with her husband.

10.  As a result of her incarceration in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Clinic, the defendant has been seen by psychiatrists on a number of occasions.  A number of reports have been obtained on her, dating from July of last year through to 8 January this year.  The conclusions of those reports are the same.

11.  I will deal with the most recent reports.  Those are the ones in January this year, and the defendant has been seen by two psychiatrists, both of them visiting psychiatrists in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.

12.  The conclusion of Dr Chow, one of the psychiatrists, is that the defendant suffers from schizophrenia with active psychotic symptoms.  He notes she has been under treatment for a few months; she would have been since July of last year.  She was observed still to be actively psychotic and her insight remains poor.  Her mental condition is unfavourable.  There is a risk of violence.  He considers further psychiatric inpatient treatment is necessary and recommends a hospital order under Section 45, Mental Health Ordinance.  A period of 4 to 6 months is recommended.

13.  Dr Chang has also seen the defendant.  He again says she suffers from psychotic disorder, namely, schizophrenia.  She has active psychotic symptoms and poor insight.  In-Inpatient treatment is necessary for her safety and the safety of others.  He also recommends committal to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for up to 6 months.

14.  So that also accords with the findings that were made in July of last year by two other psychiatrists.

15.  Clearly, the defendant is in need of continued treatment for both her own protection and the protection of the public at large.

16.  Of course, the defendant has been convicted of a serious offence and, were a sentence of imprisonment being imposed, it could range from 3 years’ imprisonment up to life imprisonment for this offence.  There is no guideline sentence, as the facts can be highly variable for these offences, but an attack with a knife would warrant a sentence in excess of 3 years’ imprisonment.

17.  However, in this case, the defendant is mentally disordered and principles of sentencing that apply to mentally disordered persons are the appropriate principles that should be applied.

18.  In this case, there is in fact clear causal connection between her disorder and the offence that has been committed.

19.  The recommendation to me is that a hospital order be made.  This is said to be for the protection of public and the interests of the defendant. 

20.  There is clear evidence of an actual mental disorder that requires treatment.

21.  Under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, which the doctors refer to (that is, Cap 136), such an order (that is, a hospital order) can be made for an indeterminate or a fixed period of time.  An indefinite order should only be imposed where the doctors cannot with confidence predict when the defendant will be fit for release.

22.  Here, both the doctors in their reports of 8 January 2016 recommended a hospital order of between 4 to 6 months.  Although it is a variable term, they do recommend a finite term.

23.  So I consider that in this case a finite term should be imposed, one that is in accordance with the recommendations of the two psychiatrists.

24.  For those reasons, the sentence that I will impose will be one of a hospital order; that is, committal to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under Section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

25.  The recommendation of between 4 to 6 months for a period in my view means a term not exceeding 6 months.

26.  The defendant has been in the centre for some time and further treatment is still in the favour, so I consider that I should err on the side of caution and order a 6-month hospital order in this case.

27.  So the sentence accordingly were a hospital order:  committal to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a period of 6 months.