HKSAR v. LEE MAN LOK

HCCC 408/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 408 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

BACKGROUND

1.  The Defendant was charged with one count of Murder on the indictment dated 2 December 2024 and was committed to the Court of First Instance in the High Court on 25 November 2024.  On 4 February 2025, the prosecution informed the Court that they are prepared to accept the Defendant’s plea to Manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility in full satisfaction of the count of Murder on the indictment.

2.  On 19 June 2025, when the Defendant appeared before me, he pleaded guilty to Manslaughter and accepted the Summary of Facts.  I convicted the Defendant accordingly, that is, convicted him of Manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.  

FACTS

3.  On 11 October 2021, the Defendant visited his 78 years-old father (the Deceased)  who was residing at Room 1005, Yin Tak House (Block B), Yin Lai Court, No 180 Lai King Hill Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories in the afternoon at around 4:35 p.m. The Defendant used to live together with his father but was at that time living away at a rehabilitation hostel following a release from a hospital order.  According to what the Defendant later admitted to the police, during the visit, an argument over work broke out between them, during which the Deceased pushed him and the Defendant stabbed the Deceased repeatedly with two fruit knives which he had purchased in a supermarket earlier that day.  He had also bought a brand-new pair of scissors and put it inside his rucksack together with the two knives.

4.  At around 4:40 p.m., a neighbour heard screaming and calling for help coming out from the Deceased’s flat and called the police.  Upon arrival, police officers found the Deceased in a pool of blood with over 80 stab and cut wounds all over his face, neck and limbs, and the Defendant was sitting motionless nearby on a sofa with the bloodstained knives laid besides him.

5.  The Defendant was arrested by the police.  Under caution, he said the knives were for self-defence as the Deceased had just assaulted him and so he stabbed him.  

6.  The Deceased was immediately sent by the ambulancemen to Princess Margaret Hospital for emergency treatment, but he was certified dead some 8.5 hours later after admission to the hospital.  The autopsy report confirmed the cause of his death was “multiple stab and cut wounds to the body”.  It was also remarked that the injuries on his arms and hands were consistent with defensive injuries when the Deceased was trying to defend himself or grab the weapon.

DEFENDANT’S PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY AND CONDITION AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE

7.  Parties obtained expert opinion on the Defendant’s psychiatric condition from three psychiatrists, by way of written reports:

(i)  Dr. Vanessa Wong, Specialist in Psychiatry, dated 13 March 2024;

(ii)  Dr. Dorothy Tang, Visiting Psychiatrist of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, dated 2 September 2024;

(iii)  Dr. Samuel Tsang, Visiting Psychiatrist of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, dated 13 September 2024.

8.  In summary, the three reports conclude that the Defendant had a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, diagnosed in 2016.  His symptoms included auditory hallucinations (voices telling him to kill his family)  and persecutory delusions (e.g. believing his parents were poisoning him).

9.  He had four prior psychiatric hospitalisations from 2016 to 2018, including two previous incidents in 2017 and 2018 where he attacked his father and sister with knives.

10.  Leading up to the offence, Defendant’s condition worsened.  He had stopped contacting his family for 3 months, was struggling at work, and had even reportedly stopped taking his medication for at least several days or up to few weeks before the offence.

11.  All three psychiatrists agreed that at the time of the killing, the Defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness.  They all conclude that his psychotic symptoms substantially impaired his mental responsibility, his ability to form rational judgment, and his self-control.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.  Defendant is now aged 35 and is still single.  He has a criminal record in 2018 of “Wounding or Inflicting grievous bodily harm” when he attacked his sister with a chopper knife under the influence of his psychotic belief that he would die otherwise.  He was sentenced to a three-month hospital order and was transferred to Kwai Chung Hospital for further treatment.

13.  He was born and educated in Hong Kong and went to study a degree in Psychology at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for two years.  He worked as a Part-time Membership Services Assistant for Hong Kong Jockey Club from 2008 to 2014.  He was a Customer Service Officer for the Swire Coca Cola Ltd from 2014 to 2016 but later quitted his job due to the onset of his mental illness.  He then went to Australia for working holiday but he could not find a job there.  He later worked as a project assistant at the Department of Health for a year, and as a clerk at the office of the Working Family Allowance Scheme at the time of the offence.  Before the offence, he lived in a rehabilitation hostel run by New Life Rehabilitation Ltd in Shamshuipo.

14.  Mr. Sherry, counsel for the Defendant, invites the Court to consider that although this incident is a tragic one, the Defendant’s fault is mitigated by the fact that he was unable to control his own psychiatric condition.  The Defendant’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia has substantially impaired the Defendant’s ability to know what was right and what was wrong.  In view of the observations made by the private psychiatrist, Dr. Wong and consistent with the approach stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chiu Yu To CACC 104/2000, he submits that further medical reports should be obtained before the appropriate sentence is passed.

HOSPITAL ORDER

15.  I have read the reports from the two psychiatrists from Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre and also from the private psychiatrist called by the Defence filed at the time when the Defendant pleaded guilty before me.  All three psychiatrists gave the opinion that at the time of the killing, the Defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind or was experiencing psychotic symptoms which substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and to exercise self-control.

16.  I have acceded to the request by the Defence and since ordered two further psychiatric reports from the two registered psychiatrists at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre to give their updated assessments and opinion on the question of Hospital Order, which reports I now have.  

17.  Based on the two psychiatric reports by Dr. Dorothy Tang dated 29 August 2025 and Dr. Samuel Tsang dated 5 September 2025, the following is a brief summary of their key findings and conclusions.

Overall Diagnosis & Opinion

18.  Both psychiatrists independently diagnose the Defendant with Schizophrenia, continuous.  They agree that at the time of the offence, he was under the influence of active psychotic symptoms, which substantially impaired his ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control.  This supports the legal basis for a defence of diminished responsibility.

Key Consistent Findings

19.  Longstanding Severe Illness: Both reports detail a long history of psychosis, including:

(i)  Bizarre Delusions: Beliefs that the Defendant would die by age 35 unless he killed a family member; that his parents were poisoning him; and currently, that the Deceased was not his biological father.

(ii)  Hallucinations: Hearing voices commanding him to kill.

20.  Deterioration Before the Offence: Both psychiatrists note that the Defendant’s condition worsened significantly after he stopped taking his medication days or weeks before the incident, leading to an increase in psychotic symptoms.

21.  Inconsistent Accounts: The Defendant has given varying and often fantastical accounts of the offence (e.g. acting in self-defence, being controlled by advanced technology like 5G), which are consistent with his psychotic state.

22.  Guarded Prognosis & Treatment Needs: Both psychiatrists state that the Defendant has responded poorly to treatment, even with high-dose antipsychotics like Clozapine.  They emphasize his limited insight into his illness and high risk of violence when unwell.  

Opinion

23.  Consequently, both psychiatrists recommend a Hospital Order for an unspecified period for further inpatient care and rehabilitation.

THE SENTENCE

24.  In my judgment, these two most updated reports provide a consistent psychiatric foundation for the plea of manslaughter by diminished responsibility, characterizing the offence as a direct result of a severe and untreated mental illness.  The primary recommendation is clearly for ongoing compulsory psychiatric hospitalization rather than a standard prison sentence.

25.  This morning, Mr. Sherry informs the court that the Defendant understands the content of the new reports and he would comply with the recommendations as stated.

26.  Having considered all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of this offence, the character and antecedents of the Defendant, the psychiatric evidence placed before me, and the other available methods of dealing with the Defendant, I find that the most suitable method of disposing of this case is by imposing a Hospital Order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136, for an unspecified period as recommended by Dr. Tang and Dr. Tsang, and I so order.