HKSAR v. TSANG WING HONG

DCCC 862/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 862 OF 2015

----------------

----------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “Wounding with intent”, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

Facts

2.  The defendant and the 19-year-old victim Ms Au did not know each other.  At around 6:40 pm on 1 July 2015, Ms Au walked along Siu Lek Yuen Road near junction of Chap Wai Kon Street, Shatin. Suddenly, she felt her back was stabbed twice by a hard object.  She turned round and saw the defendant holding a pair of scissors.  The defendant further stabbed at Ms Au’s chest twice with the pair of scissors.  Ms Au pushed the defendant away and fled towards Siu Lek Yuen Road. 

3.  The defendant chased after Ms Au.  A motorcyclist Mr So and a passer-by Mr Sham were alerted. After fleeing onto the nearby traffic lane, Ms Au fell down to the ground.  The defendant tried to stab Ms Au again.  Mr So saw the defendant fall down.  He immediately subdued the defendant with Mr Sham and other passers-by. 

4.  Under caution, the defendant said he did not know Ms Au.  He wanted to go to prison.  Therefore, he took a pair of scissors from his residence for stabbing others randomly.  He went to the scene and saw Ms Au.  He approached Ms Au and used the pair of scissors to stab her.    

5.  Medical examination showed that Ms Au sustained the following injuries:

(a) 3cm penetrating wound over the right chest;

(b) a penetrating wound from the back with a 2cm wound on the surface;

(c) 5mm breach of the parietal pleural surface;

(d) 2 other smaller stab wounds at the back with no penetration into pleural cavity;

(e) 1.5cm through and through laceration at right upper lobe;

(f) mediastinal laceration is only around 1cm inferior to the right superior pulmonary vein.

Mitigation

6.  According to the antecedent statement, the defendant is aged 26, single, unemployed and was living with his parents and sisters.   

7.  Two psychiatric reports have been obtained after the defendant’s first appearance in the District Court.  The two reports have been explained to the defendant who agreed with the content and the doctors’ recommendation that a Hospital Order of unspecified period be imposed on him. 

Sentence

8.  The two psychiatric reports were compiled by Dr. Bonnie W.M. Siu and Dr. Ching Wing Ka respectively.  According to both doctors, the defendant has been suffering from schizophrenia since 2011.  He had been admitted to psychiatric unit of Shatin Hospital for several times with the latest admission from 1 November 2014 to 8 June 2015.  The defendant understood the charge against him and his position in legal proceedings.  Both doctors are of the opinion that the defendant is mentally fit to plead.

9.  In the report, Dr. Bonnie Siu stated: “He (i.e. the defendant) is actively psychotic with odd beliefs.  He has limited insight to his mental illness.  He is highly unpredictable with strong suicide and violence risk.  His unpredictability with high violence risk might pose a danger to the public.”

10.  Similarly, Dr. Ching stated in the report: “During his stay in SLPC, he was noted to be floridly psychotic despite medications.  He harboured poor insight towards his mental illness and nagged for decrease in the medication. … Further inpatient treatment is necessary for his benefit and protection of others.”

11.  Both doctors recommended a Hospital Order of an unspecified period under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, for treatment of the defendant’s mental illness, for his own benefit and safety and for the protection of other people

12.  This is a sad case.  Ms Au was attacked for no reason.  I have viewed some photographs depicting Ms Au’s injuries.  According to the prosecution, Ms Au has recovered fully and there is no evidence of any permanent disability.  Though there is no sentencing tariff for offence of this nature, the usual sentence ranges from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

13.  It is clear from the materials before me as well as the doctors’ recommendations and opinions that the defendant is a patient with mental illness who needs proper treatment.  I am of the view that for the protection of the public and in the interest of the defendant, the most appropriate method to deal with him is to sentence him to detention under a Hospital Order.  I therefore sentence him to detention under a Hospital Order in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for an unspecified period.  Further, I have considered the principle set out in HKSAR v Ha Kei Fuk, CACC 688/1995 regarding the application of the proviso under section 47(2) of the Mental Health Ordinance.  For the avoidance of doubt, I order that the proviso under section 47(2) do apply.