|
HCA 1593/2015
香港特別行政區
高等法院
原訟法庭
民事訴訟2015年第1593號
_________________________
_________________________
| 聆訊日期 : 2016年3月4日 |
| 判案書日期 : 2016年4月8日 |
判案書
引言
1. 被告人申請剔除原告人的申索陳述書、並要求法庭撤銷本案。
背景
2. 原告人向被告人提出本案，在申索陳述書中，附夾約250頁文件，她亦將本案傳訊令狀送遞至12位人仕、機構或組織，包括：中華人民共和國(國家主席)、英國(領事館)、美國(領事館)、法國(領事館)、立法會(主席)等等。
3. 本席盡能力了解，加上被告人代表楊律師的協助，原告人應認為自己“沒有精神病”，只是主診醫生對她加害、衊造她是精神病患者，雖然她有證據，但仍不為精神健康覆查審裁處接受，所以必須撤銷有關決定；另外，她亦認為是被告人不向她批出保安工作許可，以致她無法從事有關工作，因此索償約共$3,500,000的收入、強積金損失。
4. 原告人的理據包括:
“...本人鄭燕芳是沒有精神病，本人鄭燕芳為了名下的訟案獲得公平審訊，才搗毀終審法院的文儀用品及律改司文件收發處玻璃…”
“...本人鄭燕芳在2006年3月至2010年3月，4年期間沒有服食精神科藥物。此期間本人鄭燕芳能夠在每日工作十二小時的護理工作，能報讀保健員事情，由請求重考至入稟法院起訴仁愛堂舉辦課程失誤的問題，及同時本人鄭燕芳能夠處理二十三宗纏身的訟案…”
(申索陳述書第一頁)
5. 不過，從附夾在申索陳述書的文件中，本席得知原告人曾不止一次向精神健康覆查審裁處申請，但都不成功，最近期的2014年7月10日醫療報告說：
“ 1. ……
2. Madam Cheng was known to the mental health service since 2003, with illness onset likelyaround 1996, which affected her ability to complete tertiary education. She became preoccupied with litigations and believed that the society was unjust. She made numerous complaints to various government departments. Complaints included that she was sexually harassed by men in the street in sports field as they were not wearing upper garments. She perceived this as a way of deterring other people from using public places and that the government, by allowing this and causing her to lose her court case, is in league with the men in order to make money off her court case. Her friends and relatives kept a distance due to her readiness to take legal actions. She was aggressive towards her father when he tried to reason with her, and had threw bowl and chair towards him and hit him with a broom in the past. She was unable to sustain jobs due to her litigious behaviour. She spent all her savings on multiple lawsuits and her spare time photocopying various documents.
3. She was known to the mental health service since 2003, when she was arrested and sentenced to Hospital Order for 4 months at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for damaging furniture at the Court of Final Appeal in December 2002, and a month later, damaging a glass door at the Reception Office of Queensway Government Office on 2 Jan 2003 with a hammer. She was diagnosed to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. After serving the order, she was certified to Castle Peak Hospital for further treatment on 16 May 2003, where she stayed till 29 November 2005. She was treated with antipsychotics, which ameliorated her persecutory delusions against the government. She was conditionally discharged to a halfway house.
4. Since then, her insight remained suboptimal and she was preoccupied with her legal proceedings. She had 2 admissions to CPH in 2007, 2009 for breach of discharge conditions and relapse. She stayed in Yee Tsui halfway house from 2005 till 2009, when she returned home to live with her elderly father who had difficulty supervising her medications when she strongly refused. In her latest relapse in April 2010, after stopping her medications for a few months, she sent her medications to the legal department and the Legislative Council to prove she had no mental illness. She claimed her case doctor at the time forced her to become bankrupt and she acted on such beliefs to file for bankruptcy. She was called back for admission by Form 12 for violation of the conditions of discharge and relapse of schizophrenia.
5. On 26 July 2010, she was discharged on conditions of: residing at own home, taking prescribed medications regularly and being under supervision of director of Social welfare department and accepting regular visit by community psychiatric team.
6. Since discharge, she attended follow up regularly and was maintained on antipsychotic depot medications. She showed improvement, spending less time on legal proceedings and completing a health assistant course and taking up employment in an aged home for the past year. She was last seen on 7 July 2014, her mental state was overall stable. She spent more time on hobbies and work as an alternative to spending all her time on her court cases and all her money on printing ink and paper. However, she remained fixated on the various legal proceedings against multiple agencies and organizations and showed limited insight as to her illness. She insisted that she had no mental illness and felt that the MHRT should clear her name as having no mental illness and should revoke her conditional discharge. She intended to go off medications after her conditional discharge is revoked.
7. She was last on: Benzhexol 2 mg OM PRN, Invega sustenna 150 mg imi 4 weekly
8. Madam Cheng is suffering from schizophrenia. She has history of aggression, damaging appliances and furniture in relation to her delusions in 2003. Despite being on Conditional discharge since 2005, she had three relapses secondary to non-compliance, necessitating recall to mental hospital for treatment to be delivered effectively. In recent years, it can be seen that she had shown improvement from the change of oral to depot medication to ensure compliance, both socially and functionally. However, her insight remained suboptimal and still had strong wish to stop medications. In view of her lack of insight leading to multiple relapses and past history of acting out in aggression, it is unlikely she would comply with treatment if the constraints of Conditional discharge were lifted. She would require the constraints by Conditional discharge to ensure that treatment could be delivered effectively in the community, and as in-patient if necessary ……”
還有，在相關2014年8月22日社會服務部報告中，亦表示：
“Remarks and Recommendation
16. Patient, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has multiple admissions to CPH from 2007 to 2010, all of which related to her poor drug compliance. Despite years of psychiatric treatment and psycho-education, she does not think that she is suffering from mental illness. She believes that her current stable mental state has nothing to do with her psychiatric treatment. She objects to her being labeled as a psychiatric patient and she sees no need for further psychiatric treatment. She cannot see the consequences of mental relapse in case of the termination of psychiatric treatment. In consideration of the above, further psychiatric treatment and professional intervention is preferred to safeguard Patient’s interest and monitor her mental state to avoid future relapse.”
因此，最後，2014年9月15日，覆查審裁處維持原告人仍患有“schizophrenia”及原告人只可“conditional discharge”。
“……
Classification of mental disorder at time of Application: -
Schizophrenia
The Tribunal has considered the Application relating to the above named patient and directs the Medical Superintendent of Castle Peak Hospital that the existing terms of conditional discharge shall stand.
The reasons for the decision of the Tribunal are as follows:
It is not necessary for the safety and health of the patient and for the protection of other persons that she should be so detained to receive such treatment provided that the conditions imposed in the Order are complied with.
The Tribunal is satisfied about the reasons because: -
Having interviewed the patient and considered the opinion and recommendation of Dr. TANG Wing Kay and Miss Tai Yuen-on, Medical Social Worker, the Tribunal is satisfied that the existing Order for discharge is necessary.
……”
剔除/撤銷申請
6. 在被告人提出的剔除/撤銷申請中，相關支持誓章指出原告人弄錯控告的對象：
(a) “青山醫院”不是獨立法人，因此不能是被告，
(b) “覆查審裁處的命令”不是青山醫院作出的，及
(c) 青山醫院沒有權力批核保安人員許可的申請。
另外，所謂受醫院、醫生迫害等指控亦非常模糊，沒有合理訴因及支持證據（包括Bolam Test中要求的醫學專家報告），因此屬惡意中傷、瑣屑無聊或無理纏擾，必須中止。
7. 本申請在2015年9月30日過堂時，法院頒下一般指示，但原告人之後並沒有存檔或送達反對誓章，而因此被告人亦沒有存檔或送達回應誓章。
討論
8. 2016年3月4日，剔除/撤銷申請安排在本席席前正式進行聆訊，在考慮所有事宜、法理闡釋及陳述後，本席現決定批准被告人的申請。
9. 首先，“青山醫院”當然不是“適當的被告人”，即使醫院、醫生、醫護人員有失職、疏忽等問題，“醫院管理局”才應被列為被告人。
10. 再者，“覆核審裁處”的命令及發出“保安工作許可證”的並不是由“青山醫院”負責，所以原告人弄錯其訴訟對象。
11. 最後，亦是最重要的，上述的“問題”也許可從修改本案傳訊令狀及有關狀書改正（當然，原告人並沒有提出這樣要求），但原告人的不滿（即她認為本身並沒有精神病），只是她個人的說法：
(a) 她在覆核審裁處聆訊中從未提出有關專家證據/報告，
(b) 她在本案中，亦沒有存檔任何專家證據/報告，及
(c) 她亦沒有申請將會有專家證據/報告支持其說法。
12. 因此，本案確無披露合理訴訟因由，屬瑣屑無聊、無理纏擾和濫用法律程序，應予撤銷。
訟費
13. 在本案聆訊日，雙方已就訟費方面作出陳述，既然被告人申請獲批，她亦應獲得相關訟費。在訟費陳述書中，楊律師表示她在2005開始執業，以時薪$4,000計算，在本案中，她工作了9.5小時，包括與當事人、原告人等聯絡，閱讀、準備文件及所有聆訊出庭和預備工作，再加上$1,000 其他什項費用，共$39,000。本席同意這些費用大致適當、合理，除扣減閱讀原告人文件的時間1小時外，其餘均獲批准。
結論
14. 本席下令：
(a) 剔除本案的申索陳述書及撤銷本案。
(b) 原告人須支付被告人本案及本申請 (包括2016年3月4日出庭和容後待決的費用) 的有關訟費，簡易評估為$35,000。
原告人 : 無律師代表，親自出庭應訊。
被告人 : 由孖士打律師行楊佩琪律師代表。
|