HKSAR v. YEUNG KWOK WAI

DCCC 46/2018

[2018] HKDC 1264

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 46 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge under section 17(a) of Cap 212 and has agreed the facts.

2.  The victim, who I will describe as PW1, was visiting his mother at a housing estate in Kwai Chung.  As he went to open the metal gate of the relevant premises, he was approached from behind by the defendant, and the defendant then apparently attacked him with a knife, the victim at one point falling to the ground.  The defendant then stabbed the victim a number of times.  There was a struggle, it would appear.  There seems to be some 10 seconds of attack.  A neighbour came to grant assistance.  It was reported to the police and the victim was sent to hospital.

3.  Initially, the defendant said “The victim, PW1, disturbed me, so I stabbed him.”

4.  The victim suffered some quite extensive injuries:  stab wounds over the neck, stab wounds over the chest and abdomen, fractured neck of his left humerus, and some surgical emphysema in the chest. He was initially in intensive care and then discharged on 30 October 2017, which was about eight days later.

5.  The defendant was interviewed, but was able to say little more than he had originally told when he had been arrested.

6.  The defendant’s antecedents show that he is aged 53.  He has worked as a clerk in the past; had secondary level of education; lives with his father in a room nearby to where the attack took place.

7.  As a result of what the defendant said, he was referred for psychiatric examination, and I have at least three reports on him dating from November of last year and August of this year.  The conclusions from the earlier reports are very similar to the ones we have now.  At the time when he was examined he was suffering from active psychotic symptoms.  He was recommended for a hospital order back in 2017; again diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2017; a necessity, of course, for treatment, given the nature of his illness.

8.  As the defendant had been in custody for some time, I ordered further reports on him.  The conclusions of the reports are as follows.  The defendant is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  He has had prominent psychotic symptoms for years.  There was observed to be some decrease in the intensity of his symptoms as a result of the treatment since arrest, but they still exist.  He poses a risk against others.  He is a risk to the public.  A period of inpatient psychiatric treatment is highly recommended, and a recommendation of between 4 to 6 months’ hospital order, and that is the conclusion reached by two relevant doctors.  I am told he also suffers from residual hallucinations.  He has limited insight and needs intensive rehabilitation.

9.  As far as sentence is concerned, this is a serious offence.  The attack on the victim with a knife is a serious matter. Were the defendant not to be mentally disordered, then one would consider a sentence in the range of 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment for these offences. This is an attack with a knife, and the defendant could expect a starting point in the region of 5 years’ imprisonment.

10.  However, that would not be the correct way of sentencing this particular defendant.  He is suffering from active psychiatric conditions which, as the investigating psychiatrists point out, means he poses a risk to other people and poses a risk to the public.  The court must ensure that that risk is diminished or eliminated, and that can only be done within the framework of proper treatment of his mental illness of paranoid schizophrenia.  I must ensure that that is treated.

11.  The order that is proposed is a hospital order of between 4 to 6 months.  That means the defendant must be detained for that period for the psychiatric treatment and any further treatment will be determined by the physicians who are responsible for him beyond that point.

12.  It would appear to me that I should properly follow the recommendation contained in these reports in order to both treat the defendant and reduce the risk to the public from his release, whenever that might be.

13.  So I will make, in respect of this charge, a hospital order for 6 months in respect of the defendant.  He will be remanded to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for that.