THE QUEEN v. CHAN MING KWOK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1987 No. 82
(Criminal)

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Power. J.A:

1. The applicant who has been given leave to appeal against sentence out of time faced three charges: one of attempted murder and two of wounding with intent. He pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge which was one of wounding with intent and not guilty to the two other charges which the court ordered to lie on the file and not to be proceeded with without leave. The judge then made a hospital order under s.45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for an unspecified period.

2. The facts reveal that the applicant, who has a long history of mental illness, took a chopper and wounded LAM Tsui the victim in the 2nd charge without any logical reason. Lam Tsui is his mother. The trial judge was addressed at length as to the appropriate order to make and he clearly gave earnest consideration to that matter. He was satisfied, upon the written evidence of two medical practitioners, that the applicant was a mentally disordered person and, rightly in our view, that the correct order to make was a hospital order authorizing the admission of the defendant to the Castle Peak Mental Hospital. He considered medical reports which suggested varying periods of detention for treatment. He said:

"I find it impossible to forecast today that it would be safe to release the defendant on any particular date.

His condition can be controlled by regular medication. Whilst he is detained the administration of the appropriate drugs can be ensured. Once he is released, if he ceases to take the necessary drugs he may be expected to relapse, in which case as his previous conduct shows he can be highly dangerous.

I know of no order I can make which will ensure that he takes the drugs once he is released. In the circumstances I refrain from specifying the period during which the defendant is to be detained. I will leave it to the medical authorities, once they are satisfied that it will be safe to release the defendant, to take the necessary steps under the Mental Health Ordinance for his discharge."

3. The applicant is aggreived that a specific time was not fixed for his detention. While it is understandable that this should be so,we find no fault In the approach of the trial judge. He clearly and properly bore in mind that the applicant if not under medication arid if not properly treated would be a danger to the community. The order which he made was, in our view, a correct and, indeed, sensible one and nothing has been urged before us to establish any justification for our interferring therewith.

4. The application is refused.