HKSAR v. Yeung Chi Tak

DCCC 571/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 571 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.As far as this case is concerned, the defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of Cap 212. He has agreed the facts of the case, and I have convicted him of the offences.

2.The offences represent what are unprovoked attacks with a sharp instrument such as a cutter on other persons, causing them serious injury.

3.The first of those attacks occurred on the evening of 23 December 2015.  The victim, PW1, knew the defendant - the victim himself was a senior citizen - and the defendant came up to him and cut his limbs and legs with a cutter.  The result of that was a deep wound on the victim’s right forearm and a long cut wound over his right upper arm and a cut wound on the right thigh.

4.The next of the attacks, which form the 2nd and 3rd charges to which the defendant pleaded guilty, occurred on 8 March 2016.  There were two victims and another person accompanying them.  The victims are PW2 and PW3 in the facts.  They were in the New Territories, in Yuen Long, waiting for some traffic lights to change, and the defendant appeared at their back and used a cutter to cut PW2’s neck and PW3’s right shoulder.  They shouted for help, and the defendant fled.

5.As a result of the efforts of PW5, the defendant was kept under observation.  Police officers were called.  The defendant was arrested, and he said he had taken out a cutter to cut them, and had dropped it on the street.

6.PW2 received a neck laceration with a wound of more than 10 centimetres in length on the right side, deep to the muscle layer.  PW3 was diagnosed with a 5‑centimetre superficial laceration over the right arm.

7.Initial psychiatric reports that were taken in the magistracy showed the defendant had been suffering from drug‑induced psychosis and schizophrenia and had violent tendencies, and he was remanded by that court to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for treatment.

8.The defendant’s antecedents show he is aged 40. He had a conviction in 2002 for the offence of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 19 of the same ordinance, and received a 3-week sentence of imprisonment.  The antecedents statement briefly said the defendant was known as a psychiatric patient since 2002.  He has family in Hong Kong and he has lived with them when he has not been in psychiatric centres.

9.As a result of the defendant’s known psychiatric condition, I ordered two psychiatric reports on him to be obtained, and they are the reports by Dr Chow and Dr Chan, and they are comprehensive and have a common recommendation to the court.

10.Dr Chow’s report starts by saying that the defendant, Mr Yeung, has a longstanding history of substance abuse.  He has taken cough mixture for up to 20 years.  He is a regular user of methamphetamine and also a recreational user of cannabis and hypnotics. Dr Chow tells us that Mr Yeung was known to the mental health services in 2002.  He has been diagnosed to have schizophrenia and drug-induced psychosis, and this is accompanied with a violent history.  He was last discharged from Castle Peak Hospital in 2014 for outpatient management. Mr Yeung has complained of persistent voices, auditory hallucination, in the past few years.  He has persistent referential and paranoid belief people knew what he was thinking and were talking ill about him.

11.There is a paragraph on the defendant’s mental state and examination in progress at Siu Lam Psychiatric Clinic.  This would be since his remand.  Mr Yeung was found actively psychotic since his remand at Siu Lam in March 2016.  Despite medication adjustment, he has been said to have limited progress as observed in the last few months, and still complains of active auditory hallucination, and his insight is said to be poor.

12.The opinion and recommendation of the reports of Dr Chow and Dr Chan is the same.  They set out that Mr Yeung suffers from schizophrenia with a background of substance abuse.  Despite medication adjustment, there is limited progress in his condition as noted.  A longer term of treatment and hospitalisation is expected in order to get the psychotic symptoms and insight improved, and the conclusion is as follows:

“Therefore, in view of his current active psychotic state, poor insight, unpredictably high violent risks under psychotic influence and slow progress, a compulsory psychiatric treatment under a hospital order is indicated.”

13.Both doctors ask that the court commit the defendant to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance - that is, a hospital order - and they both say that this should be for an unspecified period.

14.It has been held by the court that it is proper for this court and can be proper for this court to issue a mental health order without any period being specified therein, and that should be the order unless the medical opinion of the psychiatric specialist who examined the defendant is to the effect that the patient can confidently be expected to be fit to be released within a specified period.  If the doctors cannot express this degree of confidence, it is wiser, both in the interests of the patient and for the protection of the public, that the order should have no term attached to it.

15.The defendant will, of course, be subject for review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which would make a recommendation to the Chief Executive.

16.I formally consider, having considered section 45, 46 and 47 of the Mental Health Ordinance, I am satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the present offences, character and antecedents of the defendant and the other available methods of dealing with him, the most suitable method for disposing of the defendant in respect of these offences is by way of a hospital order.

17.The unanimous medical opinion of the psychiatric specialists who examined the defendant is that it should be for an unspecified period.  So in respect of each of the three charges to which the defendant has pleaded guilty, I shall make a hospital order of an unspecified period.