HKSAR v. Mahajan Meera

HCCC 376/2017

[2018] HKCFI 1635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 376 OF 2017

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant was charged with one count of murder, but has pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. After psychiatric reports were obtained, the prosecution very correctly accepts the plea and on the facts that have been admitted by the defendant, it is clear that this was the correct plea.

Very briefly, the background of the defendant is that she is now aged 32 and she married her husband in India in April 2012. The deceased, her daughter, was born in February 2013 and at the time of her death, was 3 years and 11 months old.

The deceased and her parents moved to Hong Kong because the father of the deceased took up employment in Hong Kong between 2012 to 2015. At the end of the contract, the family left to return to India, but returned in 2016 when the father of the deceased took up another employment in Hong Kong.

The defendant was a full-time housewife and by all accounts was a good mother and took care of the deceased very well. Unfortunately, on 1 February 2017, the defendant strangled the deceased with her hands and as a result of which the deceased met her death.

The defendant, from the beginning, admitted to killing her daughter. And it became apparent in the video recorded interviews with the police that she thought that she did not want the deceased to be like her. She could not control her anger and therefore she then pressed on the deceased’s neck.

To understand this action of the defendant, one has to look at the psychiatric background of the defendant. According to her medical history, the defendant started displaying signs of mental illness since 2008 and over the years, up to the offence, she had been on medication and when she felt better she took herself off the medication, suffered relapse and was given medication again. She obtained medication for her psychiatric problem not only in India, but also in Singapore when the family moved there for a time, and then also in Hong Kong when she suffered a relapse in 2014 and was referred to the Tuen Mun Mental Health Centre.

She returned to India in 2015 and when she came back to Hong Kong in early 2016, she received follow-up treatment at the same hospital and also at the North District Hospital. Unfortunately, her mental state was found to have deteriorated in December 2016 because of worries that she was having and she started experiencing voices in her head criticising her for her ugliness and uselessness, and she felt stressed and had poor sleep.

And although she was having follow-up treatment and medications, unfortunately on the day that the offence happened, when she was arrested and then sent to the North District Hospital, a provisional diagnosis of the defendant at that time was that she was suffering from schizophrenia. She was seen by many psychiatrists and they all agreed that she was suffering from schizophrenia.

And on 27 April this year, Dr Bonnie Siu provided a very comprehensive further psychiatric report on the defendant. Dr Bonnie Siu had examined the defendant in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a total of 29 times and her opinion was that at the time of the present offence the defendant was suffering from a relapse of her schizophrenia, preceded by her unsatisfactory psychiatric medications, compliance and her stress in childcare. And this abnormality of the mind substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to form a rational judgment or to exercise self-control at the time of the offence.

I also note in the same report that Dr Bonnie Siu observed that the defendant’s mental condition had improved gradually after psychiatric treatment, but that she will still need to continue her psychiatric treatment as she has limited insight to her mental illness. And Dr Siu says that the risk of her relapse is high if she did not comply with the psychiatric treatments. And therefore Dr Siu recommends a hospital order for an unspecified period under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136.

Miss Crebbin, in mitigation on behalf of the defendant, has also submitted to the court that this court should follow the recommendation of Dr Siu. The defendant is remorseful and no doubt will carry with her what she has done for the rest of her life. I am comforted by the fact that not only will she be receiving psychiatric help in the future, but also that her family is fully supportive of her.

As I have said, the psychiatric reports have been consistently helpful in providing background to the defendant’s commission of this offence. As Miss Crebbin has observed, this is a tragedy. It is a type of offence where there is no special sentencing guidelines and each case has to be considered on its own facts.

So, in all the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the opinion of Dr Siu is the appropriate one for the defendant and I therefore order that the defendant be incarcerated at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on a hospital order for an unspecified period.