HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD TARIQ

DCCC628/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 628 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The Defendant was convicted after trial of one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. When giving the verdict, I have already detailed the circumstances under which the attack took place and I shall not repeat all of those here.

2.  Briefly, the Defendant and PW1, the victim, are both asylum seekers who came to Hong Kong from Pakistan. PW1 met the Defendant in March 2010 and he then asked the Defendant to live with him. At the material time, the two of them were residing together in a rooftop unit. According to PW1, only on two occasions had he had some arguments with the Defendant and the arguments were in relation to some religious matters. Other than that, PW1 said that there had never been any fight between the two of them and they got along with each other.

3.  In the night of 5 April 2010, when the Defendant returned from outside, he asked PW1 about the dinner arrangement. PW1 was playing games on his computer at that time and he replied that he would cook later. PW1 said, at the time, he heard some sound from near the kitchen, like sharpening things but he did not go out to check what it was. Later, when PW1 went from his room to the living area of the premises, the Defendant suddenly used a knife to stab him and the knife was pushed inside PW1’s stomach. PW1 could see that the handle of the knife was wrapped with the Defendant’s towel. Afterwards, as the Defendant tried to attack PW1 again with the knife, a struggle ensued. PW1 said when the Defendant was chasing after him, the Defendant was saying something and was very angry. However, PW1 could not make out what the Defendant was saying.

4.  When both of them were in the living area of the premises, the Defendant used the knife to stab PW1’s abdomen a few more times, causing serious injuries to PW1 and causing PW1 to bleed profusely. However, the Defendant did not stop and continued to attack PW1 which then caused further injuries to PW1’s left thigh, upper chest area, and left arm.

5.  Eventually, PW1 fell onto the ground and he lied there. The Defendant then said to him words to the effect that he should repent. Afterwards, the Defendant went into the kitchen and washed his hands, the towel and the knife.

6.  Later, PW1 asked the Defendant to call the police for him. The Defendant promised to do so but he asked PW1 to tell the police that it was he who attacked the Defendant first. PW1 agreed. The Defendant then called the police.

7.  At trial, it was admitted that the Defendant made two calls to 999 on that day. One was made at 2015 hours in which he said somebody wanted to kill him. The other was made at 2029 hours in which he said somebody was injured and asked for an ambulance to be sent.

8.  When the police arrived, they found the Defendant sitting outside the premises. The Defendant then kept saying to PW2, who was guarding him at the time, that it was PW1 who wanted to kill him and that he had used the knife for self-defence.

9.  When PW1 was first admitted into the hospital, his condition was critical and he was found to suffer from multiple chop wounds over his right chest wall, abdomen, left upper thigh and left elbow. PW1 was hospitalized until 29 May 2010.

10.  At trial, it was also admitted that, on 4 November 2009, the Defendant made a report to Tsimshatsui Police Station. He said that someone wanted to hit him and the relevant police incident report contained this information, “… reported that, on 1 September 2009, a friend (Shafeeq) of inft told him that someone wanted to hit him for he is a messenger (sic) of God. Inft afraid something will happen, thus make a report for record.”

11.  The Defendant is a person with a clear record. He is aged 38 and is married with one son. He was an electrical appliances engineer in Pakistan but he came to Hong Kong in 2006 as an asylum seeker.

12.  In view of the Defendant’s bizarre behavior that night and the fact that the attack was launched by the Defendant for no apparent reasons and when he was not provoked, I have asked for two psychiatric reports to be prepared in order to see what the Defendant’s psychiatric condition is, and whether it is recommended that a hospital order be imposed.

13.  These reports are now with me. According to both Dr. Henry Yuen and Dr. K. W. Chow, the Defendant has been suffering from schizophrenia for at least several months prior to his commission of the offence. Dr. Chow specifically stated that the Defendant had the delusion of being the messenger of God and this, I note, was what he mentioned to the police when he made the report at Tsimshatsui Police Station in November last year. Both Dr. Yuen and Dr. Chow considered that if the Defendant were to be left on his own, the risk of him resorting to violence towards others, especially the Muslims, would be high and unpredictable. As a result, both recommended that a hospital order of 9 months be imposed so that the Defendant would be sent to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for compulsory inpatient treatment.    

14.  Having considered the facts of this case, the Defendant’s psychiatric condition and the recommendations made by Dr. Yuen and Dr. Chow, I am of the view that for the protection of the public and in the interest of the Defendant, the most appropriate method to deal with the Defendant is to have a Hospital Order of 9 months imposed under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136, and to have him detained in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre during that period of time. In case further inpatient treatment is required afterwards, an application can be made under section 36 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

15.  Therefore, I am going to impose a Hospital Order of 9 months in respect of the charge of wounding with intent of which the Defendant was convicted.