HKSAR v. Lawati Sandesh

HCCC 209/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 209 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant is now 22 years old and has been living in Hong Kong since 2009.

One of the saddest features of this case is that the defendant had, effectively, been adopted by the deceased and her husband as a result of some connection with the defendant’s real parents in Nepal. It was this so-called ‘adoption’ which enabled the defendant, who was just 17 at the time, to come to Hong Kong and earn a living here.

The frenzied killing of the deceased, as can be observed in the photographs and from the autopsy report, was as savage as can be imaged. The deceased, apparently with no warning or obvious cause for the attack, was virtually decapitated: the spinal cord was severed and her head was left only attached to the body by skin.

This terrible injury seems to have been brought about by several blows from a large chopper - seen in some of the photographs in the first album and, also, the results of the blows from that chopper are shown in those same photographs.

No doubt, in an attempt to defend herself, she had put her arm up with the result that her right hand was virtually severed at the wrist, and on her left hand one of the fingers was completely cut off. Other very serious knife wounds were caused to the deceased, on her skull and her face, and some of those injuries were right into the brain.

Aside from chop wounds, the pathologist, who was Dr Fu, found several stab wounds. This included a wound on the left side of the front of the deceased’s chest. It went into the body between the second and third ribs, and because it is directed downwards it left a tiny wound on the lung. Lower down, there was another stab wound between the 11th and 12th ribs. This penetrated the abdominal cavity and cut the left kidney.

Death, of course, with the number of injuries, all of which were very serious, was quickly achieved.

The whole incident was witnessed by a 7-year-old boy, the deceased’s son.

When the deceased’s sister heard screams in the flat, she tried to go to the aid of the deceased but was forced to make a hasty escape when she too was struck on the head. Her skull was fractured and she received a number of other wounds.

Later, police found four knives which may well have been associated with these wounds that were inflicted on both the deceased and her sister.

The defendant went on the run shortly after the incident, but he was apprehended before midnight.

Having lived under the same roof as the deceased since 2009, this attack, which happened at about 6 in the morning on 18 August 2014, will seem to be, to any normal person, beyond comprehension.

It is perfectly plain, however, that the defendant is a paranoid schizophrenic.

From reports which I have read from three psychiatrists, the defendant appears to have held persecutory delusions and to have done so for about three years. What that means, in plain terms, is that he appears to have believed that the deceased, amongst others, had planned to kill him and, to that end, he believed that she had ganged up with triads to carry out her intention.

There were other manifestations (I am not going to go through all of them) of this illness: when he saw other people eating, he thought that it was his right eye and heart that were being eaten; when he saw others smoking, he felt his own organs were smoking; and all the time he was under the impression that people around him could read his thoughts.

At one stage, at the request of his adoptive parents, he even went back to Nepal (this was for three months) in order to see a doctor - whom the defendant seems to call a “witchdoctor” - and also a priest. It is right to say that amongst the possessions found by the police belonging to the defendant, pills were found which, in India, are often prescribed for schizophrenia and for other psychotic conditions.

The defendant, in his interviews, spoke of having many dreams and of being tortured and influenced by black magic. When spoken to by the psychiatrists he said that he had not premeditated this attack, and he also admitted that when he chopped the head of the deceased’s sister he was under the belief that she too had joined the triads in order to kill him.

It is the combined opinion of three psychiatrists that the defendant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This, they believe, probably dated back to 2012 because it was then that the symptoms of schizophrenia first appeared.

For his reason, it is the opinion of all three psychiatrists that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease which substantially impaired his ability to make a rational judgment, or to exercise control at the time of the killing.

Dr Amy Liu, in her recent report which is dated 12 May this year, has stated that the defendant remains actively psychotic despite a year of inpatient treatment. She has gone on to say that the defendant continues to pose a danger to others.

Both Dr Liu and Dr Dorothy Tang agree that an unspecified time under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136, is appropriate to meet the circumstances of this case to be served at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where provision has been made for him.

I am not sure whether there is any representative of the deceased’s family here or not, but I should digress, just for one moment, to say that it is important for members of the deceased’s family, as well as for the defendant, to understand that if it had not been for the defendant’s serious mental disorder, this most horrifying killing would never have occurred.

Therefore, it is not so much to punish the defendant, but to facilitate his treatment in a psychiatric hospital that a hospital order needs to be made. That is only possible because the psychiatric illness, from which the defendant suffers, is treatable.

Mr Lawati, I want to address this straight to you. I have decided, both in your own interests as well as the interests of the public at large, that I must make an order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

I am satisfied, on the written evidence of two registered medical practitioners, Dr Liu and Dr Tang, that you are a mentally‑disordered person. I am satisfied that the nature and the degree of your mental disorder warrants your detention in the Correctional Services Department, Psychiatric Centre.

Having regard to all the circumstances, in particular the nature of this offence, I am satisfied that the most suitable method, therefore, of disposing of your case, as I have indicated already, is a hospital order under section 45.

Accordingly, I will authorise, under the hospital order I now make, that you should be detained at the Correctional Services Psychiatric Centre (having been informed that there is a place available for you).

I do not think, on the evidence of the doctors before me and in all the circumstances outlined both by the prosecution and by myself, that it can be said that you might be fit for release within a specified period. Accordingly, the order I make is without limit of time.