COURT: I will deal now with the sentence in this case.
The case has rightly been described as one which is very sad. The defendant is now aged 87 and he had been married to the deceased for almost 60 years. He had lived an honest, hardworking life but in recent years his health, both physical and mental, began to fail. He and his wife, the deceased, were heard from time to time to have arguments and also objects were obviously being thrown about. Both had been diagnosed with clinical depression.
The defendant’s daughter, Chan Sang-ying, has provided a full account about how her mother’s behaviour in recent years had made life hard for the defendant in the sense that it was difficult for him to live peacefully at home. She also became aware of the defendant’s quite recent marked deterioration and so she took him to a specialist doctor who prescribed antidepressants and other medicines, although it is doubtful that the defendant always remembered to take them.
In the light of this background, it is important to mention that the defendant’s daughter and his two sons have felt towards the defendant forgiveness for what he did to their mother.
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent occurred on 15 November 2012 at just about 7.00 in the morning. The first 999 call was made by the defendant’s daughter who followed this up with a second call. The defendant himself also called the police saying that he had hacked a person to death. In fact, the daughter only knew about what had happened because the defendant had telephoned her.
Besides informing the authorities, she immediately feared that her father would try to commit suicide and so she alerted one of her father’s neighbours about her concern. In fact, by the time the police arrived they saw the defendant was standing outside the window of his bedroom and they had to pull him back in. The flat was on the 7th floor of a building in Aberdeen.
He said to the police, “She often annoyed and therefore I used a chopper to chop her. I have killed and have to die.” The large chopper that he had used had actually come from the kitchen and it must be said that there was nothing premeditated about this attack.
The defendant was taken to Queen Mary Hospital where he was found to have some abrasions on his lips and forearm. The deceased was also taken to that same hospital where she was found to be unconscious on arrival and really never regained consciousness thereafter. She had suffered a total of eight wounds, three of which were deep and the most significant of those was over the left side of the deceased’s neck. There were also multiple lacerations over her neck, face and ear but she was still alive because no injury had been caused to any of her arteries.
In fact, the deceased died on 5 March this year; that is over 3½ months later. But there is a perfectly sound reason why murder was never charged. It is that the cause of death was shown to be bleeding inside the brain and this was a wholly separate development unconnected with any of the injuries inflicted by the defendant. This is known because there was a brain scan done in November 2012 which showed no bleeding of any kind in that area.
So, to put it another way, the prosecution has accepted, quite rightly, that as none of the wounds inflicted on the victim were lethal, even though they were very serious, a direct causal relationship between the cut wounds and the death cannot be established. It seems that the provocative actions on the part of the deceased, together with the defendant’s own mental troubles and a loss of sleep due to his inability to find any sleeping pills, combined to cause him to launch this attack which was completely out of character.
The defendant has been in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre ever since these events. I had before me two reports which were dated 5 December 2012, when this case was last in court on 28 October, and they suggested that the defendant was suffering from dementia coupled with depressive symptoms.
Now, obviously I needed more up-to-date reports not only to find out what had been happening in the meanwhile but also to know what is recommended for the disposal of this case.
I have got two very helpful and detailed reports from Dr Dorothy Tang, dated 6 November and Dr Amy Liu dated 13 November this year. These reports indicate that while the defendant was suffering from a severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms, the defendant’s condition is now much improved. This has been achieved through antidepressants and counselling because now, apparently, there is no abnormal behaviour, and it is recommended that there should be a hospital order made for between 9 and 12 months. The reason this is needed is for what is described as inpatient management for rehabilitation as well as consolidation of the treatment so far. I am satisfied that this is clearly the most suitable way to deal with this case.
I have been assured that a bed is available for the defendant at Castle Peak Hospital. Accordingly, I shall make a hospital order authorising the admission of the defendant to the Castle Peak Hospital for a period of 12 months.
That order is made under the terms of section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136.