HKSAR v. FU KA WONG

HCMA 480/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 480 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM FLCC 973/2008)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.  This Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of making off without payment.  He was given a Hospital Order for a period of four months by way of sentence.  The Appellant appealed against that order on the ground that is too long.

2.  The facts which were admitted showed that the Appellant ordered a meal at a restaurant, ate it and was stopped when he intended to leave and asked to pay.  He refused saying that somebody else had paid for him.  When police were called he repeated his refusal to pay and when arrested and cautioned he told the police that Pope Benedict had paid for him.

3.  The magistrate established that the Appellant was fit to plead at the time he entered his plea of guilty.  After conviction the magistrate considered the contents of two psychiatric reports, which showed that the Appellant had suffered from schizophrenia for a period over 20 years; that he had no insight into his illness and that at the time of the offence he was psychotic.  It was on that basis that a Hospital Order of four months’ duration was recommended.

4.  On appeal the Appellant repeated his claim that his sentence was too long.  He said that he was seriously harassed by various people during his teens.  He believed he could get over every bad influence and could leave prison and turn over a new leaf.  He thought his Christian faith could help his mental problems.

5.  Other comments the Appellant made in court appear to indicate that he is not entirely well even now.  One cogent reason for the Hospital Order to be imposed was his inability to maintain follow-up treatment for his condition.

6.  The Magistrate considered two psychiatric reports and found that the Appellant would benefit from a Hospital Order.  He imposed the order as recommended by the psychiatrists.  Given the Appellant’s mental condition and in particular his inability to maintain follow-up treatment, it appears that the sentence would be of benefit to him. 

7.  Accordingly this appeal against sentence is dismissed