COURT: The defendant, Yeung Fong-chu, faced three counts on indictment. The 1st count was administering a stupefying or overpowering drug with intent to commit an indictable offence, that is to murder Natalie, her daughter. The 2nd count was attempted murder of Natalie and the 3rd count was an alternative count to the 2nd count alleging that the defendant wounded Natalie with intent. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all three charges and after the trial, the jury found her guilty of the 1st and the 2nd counts.
Now the Summary of Facts. This is no doubt a tragic case. The defendant was a mature woman with an unblemished record prior to the incident out of which she faced the three counts.
The defendant was described as a gentle, caring and loving person. She enjoyed a good relationship with her husband, Henry and her daughter, Natalie.
She worked as a volunteer in a Buddhist education centre. Whilst she was staying in a Buddhist establishment in the Mainland, she started to hear voices and see images like negative of films, saying bad things would happen to her daughter, Natalie.
She came back to Hong Kong and relayed that to her husband, Henry, and Natalie, what she heard and saw. Despite both her husband and daughter telling her what she saw and heard was not real and asked her to seek psychiatric help. The defendant refused as she firmly believed the voices and images were real.
She urged Henry to apply for emigration to the United Kingdom and Henry complied with her request. It is now clear that the defendant was suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia which she herself was not aware of at the time. The voices and images became more frequent and horrible. Defendant heard voices saying that Natalie would be kidnapped and sold into prostitution. She also heard voices telling her that she needed to act fast to help Natalie.
At the time, the family was still waiting for the visa to emigrate to the UK. As the defendant felt that time was running out, she decided to help Natalie by hiding her in a place Natalie would be safe, that Natalie would not be get at.
In the afternoon of 13 April 2021, she bought two cups of bubble tea and brought them back to her home at Laguna City. One for herself and the other one to be shared by Henry and Natalie. She placed around 30 tablets of sleeping pills such as Lorazepam which she had taken from her mother earlier to treat her own insomnia into the bubble tea and shared it out to her husband and daughter to make them sleep.
The defendant then used a ceramic knife to slash Natalie three times before she left her home at Laguna City. Ambulance men were called to the scene and attended to both Henry and Natalie. Police also arrived at the scene to start their investigation.
Henry and Natalie were sent to two different hospitals for treatment. Medical evidence showed that Natalie sustained cut wounds on her neck and both forearms. Henry suffered injuries to his elbow. Urine tests showed both Henry and Natalie had Lorazepam in their urine.
The defendant’s sister, Yeung Ming, assisted police to look for the defendant during the day of 14 April without success. The defendant turned up at Yeung Ming’s home carrying her rucksack. The police was informed about this and she was arrested for administering poison and wounding.
The ceramic knife found inside the rucksack carried by the defendant showed bloodstains with Natalie’s DNA on the blade. The defendant voluntarily attended two video‑recorded interviews in which she gave her explanations why she did what she did to her daughter.
Both psychiatrists for the prosecution, Dr Amy Liu and for the defence, Dr Li were in agreement that the defendant was suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia at the time of the offences. Both agreed that on the defendant’s own account, the defendant was capable of forming the intent to commit the crime she faced.
Further, on the defendant’s own account, her act of buying bubble tea and putting sleeping pills inside to be shared by her husband and daughter showed planning or premeditation. The only real issue before the jury was whether the prosecution had made them sure that all the elements of the various offences, in particularly the issue of intent was present despite the defendant’s mental condition.
The jury was also asked to consider whether the defence of insanity was made out by the defence. By finding the defendant guilty of both 1st and 2nd counts, the jury must have been sure that the defendant did commit the two offences with the requisite intent.
Now background and mitigation. The background of the defendant was fully disclosed in the video-recorded interviews and by the character evidence given by her younger sister, Yeung Ming, and her good friend, Ms Nei. There is no need to repeat them here.
In mitigation, Mr Raffell submitted that the defendant realised she had to shoulder the responsibility for what she had done. She did not want to act in this case to tarnish the reputation of her family or the Buddhist education centre she worked as a volunteer before.
Mr Raffell did not oppose to the recommendation of the Hospital Order with the period of 9 to 12 months. Mr Raffell suggested this Court to adopt 9 months.
Now my consideration and reason for sentence. It is quite clear that before the mental illness, this gentle, loving defendant would not have committed these horrific offences. Due to her mental illness when she was suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia, she, in her warped mind believed that her daughter was in imminent danger and she did what she did as a means to save her daughter and in doing so, she harmed her daughter instead.
While her mental condition is not a defence to the two offences when she was still capable and did form the necessary intent, her culpability is much diminished in the tragic circumstances of this case.
In other words, the fact that she committed these offences while under the influence of her mental condition which was not something she had brought on herself is a significant mitigating factor in this case.
I have before me the written reports by two registered medical practitioners, that is the two psychiatrists, Dr Amy Liu and Dr Kimberly Yip. Both doctors said the defendant came across as relaxed and calm after the convictions.
Dr Liu said the defendant acknowledged that she suffered from psychotic symptoms and appreciated the improvement brought by the psychiatric medication treatment. Dr Liu was of the opinion that the defendant is still suffering from psychosis, the provisional diagnosis would be severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms. Schizophrenia would be considered as the deferential diagnosis.
The defendant is considered to have very high violent risk when she is under psychotic influence. Dr Liu recommended a Hospital Order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for a period of 9 to 12 months. The defendant could serve the sentence at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where provisions had been made for her.
Dr Liu also mentioned that after her period of incarceration at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, the defendant would be arranged with further rehabilitation at Castle Peak Hospital for consolidation of treatment and insight. Supervised accommodation arrangement would be necessary when she regarded mentally fit to be discharged back to the community.
Dr Yip is the psychiatrist treating the defendant throughout her stay at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre up to the present. As to the defendant’s present mental state, Dr Yip said regarding the defendant’s insight, the defendant was able to tell that she had psychosis and acknowledges that the voices and images she heard and saw were hallucinations.
The defendant realised that the psychiatric medication had helped her and agrees with the need for continued treatment. She also understands the need for a second stage of treatment at the Castle Peak Hospital.
Dr Yip was of the opinion that the defendant is impressed to be suffering from psychosis. The provisional diagnosis would be a severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms also known as psychotic depression at the time of the offence. A differential diagnosis would be schizophrenia.
The defendant is considered of high violent risk when under psychotic influence. Further inpatient psychiatric treatment at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre would be necessary. Rehabilitation at Castle Peak Hospital would be arranged.
Dr Yip also recommended a Hospital Order of 9 to 12 months under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance and the defendant could serve the sentence at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where provision had been made for her.
Although the defendant has been convicted of two very serious offences, in particular the offence of attempted murder of her daughter, I have already outlined why her culpability is much diminished in this case.
Having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the offences and the character, and antecedents of the defendant, I am of the view that she should not be sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment.
I am satisfied that pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, the defendant is a mentally disordered person and the nature or degree of mental disorder from which the defendant is suffering warrants a detention in the Correctional Services Department Psychiatric Centre or a mental hospital for treatment. Arrangements had been made for her admission at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.
While the recommendation is for 9 to 12 months, since the defendant had been under treatment for almost 3 years, and treatment is still required, I think it is prudent to make a Hospital Order for 12 months.
So the actual sentence for the 1st count, the defendant is sentenced to a Hospital Order for 12 months. For the 2nd count, the defendant is sentenced to a Hospital Order for 12 months. Needless to say they are concurrent.