HKSAR v. Hung Heung Ping

DCCC 884/2017

[2018] HKDC 854

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 884 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary. The particulars of burglary are that he entered into HSBC in Tuen Mun Plaza and then did unlawful damage. So it can be seen from those particulars this is not a run-of-the-mill or normal burglary at all.

2.The facts show the offence itself was committed on 18 July at around 6.35 am.  The defendant, who was then 55 years old, went to the HSBC branch in Tuen Mun Plaza.  Obviously, at that time, the bank was not open for business.  He used a piece of stone and a metal pole to smash the glass door at the front of the bank and then got into the bank.  He then picked up a metal queue stand, used it to smash two glass panels at the teller counter, two digital boards and a metal tray.  He also threw some computer monitors off a reception table.  All of this of course was captured on the CCTV at the bank.

3.The defendant was arrested at the scene.  I am sorry.  He was subdued by a security manager at the entrance to the Tuen Mun Plaza.  The police indicate that the actual cost of damage was $123,400.  Defendant admitted this under caution and admitted he entered as a trespasser and did unlawful damage inside. 

4.The defendant is now, according to his antecedents, 52 years old, works as a temporary worker, had an income of 12,000-odd when he was interviewed.  The most relevant paragraph is at G, health condition of the defendant.  The defendant has a mental problem since 1997, required to take medicine.  He was considered fit to plead.  He has one previous conviction for criminal damage in May of 2016 when he was fined $2,000, and it can be seen from the reports that were obtained that the reason for the commission of criminal damage was similar to the reason for his commission of the damage on this day which was he suffers from ‑‑ at the time he suffered from what is described as a delusional disorder. 

5.When the defendant came before the court originally, two psychiatric reports were ordered and were given to the presiding magistrate at Tuen Mun Court, and these reports are dated July 2017 on the defendant.  Conclusions are quite simple: defendant was suffering from relapse of a delusional disorder.  He had a persecuted delusion towards the bank and his wife, and the consulting psychiatrist at that time considered in-patient psychiatric management was warranted and an order of hospital order of between 3 to 4 months would have been appropriate for him to help treat his delusional disorder. 

6.That was back in July of 2017.  Of course, we are now in June of 2018.  So I ordered two more reports to deal with sentencing today.  The conclusions of the reports are similar except that the defendant having been hospitalised is now considered at least free from the delusional disorder at this point.

7.The conclusion of the first report of 14 June 2018 is the defendant suffers from a delusional disorder.  His mental condition is currently stable.  He needs further outpatient treatment, and arrangements apparently have been made for that.  And another report also dated 14 June also concludes the defendant has a history of delusional disorder with a relapse at the material time - that is the time of the commission of this offence - as evidenced by his persecutory delusion towards the bank and his wife.  With medication treatment and SLPC, his mental condition has stabilised.  No in-patient psychiatric management is warranted at the current juncture.  Outpatient follow-up is respectfully recommended.

8.So what can be taken from these reports is that the defendant suffers from a delusional disorder, and at the time these offences were committed, he was under the influence of that disorder.  The defendant must be treated by this court as a person who is suffering from a mental disorder.  Of course, courts approach sentencing of a person such as that in a very different way than they normally approach sentencing of people who are considered to be entirely responsible for their acts.

9.The charge here is burglary although the real gravamen of the offence is the breaking into the bank and damaging the items.  There is in fact a guideline sentence of where a commercial premise is entered and items are stolen from that or is entered in order for items to be stolen.  The guideline sentence has a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment for a person of clear record after trial.  Naturally, that guideline is of only marginal assistance to the court today.

10.The defendant committed this offence because he had a delusion about the Hongkong Bank which arose out of a psychiatric disorder.  Naturally, this places it in a very different category from the normal case of burglary, and my consideration is the guideline is only of -- cannot be of definitive guidance in determining what the appropriate starting point for sentence for this offence must be.

11.The offence itself involved considerable amount of damage being inflicted on the bank, smashed doors and items inside leading to the cost of some $123,400 for repair.  The court must of course naturally take that into account in determining what the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case is.

12.I note that in relation to this defendant, he has been detained since the date of the commission of the offence on the 18th day of July 2017.  I am told that on his release from custody that his son is in a position to house him, and I do note from the psychiatric reports that outpatient treatment arrangements have been made for him.  So I anticipate that it is, as it were, safe at this stage for him to be released that he will continue with his medication and one hopes be free from any further delusional disorders which would cause him to commit the kind of damage that these delusional disorders have caused him to inflict in 2016 and 2017.  

13.My overall consideration is that the sentence of imprisonment is appropriate given this is not the first offence of this involving damage that the defendant has committed.  I consider a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for this offence.  He has pleaded guilty.  So the sentence should be one of 10 months’ imprisonment.  I see that the defendant has already been imprisoned for almost 11 months.  I see no reason to suspend this sentence as it will -- it should lead to the defendant’s immediate release.  So it is 10 months’ imprisonment.