HKSAR v. Tsui Shun-yiu, Matthew

DCCC 39/2018

[2018] HKDC 1006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 39 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has entered a plea of guilty to wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, as a result of an attack by the defendant on the victim on 14 November last year in Mui Wo in Lantau Island

2.The facts are, I will put it like this, primarily agreed.  There is some dispute as to the nature of the implement used to inflict the damage, but I do not think it has any relevance to sentencing.

3.The victim and the defendant were known to each other.  The victim lived with his parents at a house in Lantau Island and had known the defendant for a number of years.  They had studied at the same primary school and were neighbours in the village and were described as good friends.

4.On 14 November 2017 they went out for some drinks together, which they economically did at the 7-Eleven Convenience Store near Mui Wo Ferry Pier and then afterwards to a park near the market.

5.There was a quarrel between them, and the defendant hit the victim’s face and challenged him to a fight.  It did not transpire at that stage.  Later on, in the early hours of the next morning, the defendant was seen outside the victim’s bedroom knocking on his window, asking him to go downstairs.  The victim went to the ground floor and opened the main door.  He says he saw the defendant swing a fruit knife which was 20 centimetres in length.  He tried to hold his hand and was wounded several times in the head, chest and back.

6.The defendant’s instructions are as said within the medical reports that were subsequently ordered that he took a pair of scissors from his room and went to PW1’s home to attack him.

7.Whatever bladed instrument was used, the victim received a number of injuries:  a 2‑centimetre laceration over his left scalp; two 1‑centimetre lacerations over the left scalp; a 5‑millimetre laceration over the right occiput; a 5‑millimetre laceration over the right palm; a 3‑millimetre laceration over the left 4th web space; a 1‑centimetre laceration of the sternum; a 4‑centimetre laceration of the left scapular region, with oozing; and a 1‑centimetre laceration over the left arm.

8.The victim was treated.  25 stitches were received. He was discharged on the same day and has not obtained any sick leave.  There is no evidence before me of continuing trauma or continuing injury at this stage, so it was a nasty attack involving a lot of cuts and lacerations which were treated by stitches, but it would appear fortunately no serious injury or long‑lasting injury has been sustained by the victim.

9.Turning to the defendant, he is aged 22, still a young man; educated to secondary 5 level in Hong Kong; described as unemployed since 2016.  He has been to a drug addiction treatment centre as a result of the sentence he received on 5 April 2017, so he must have been seen as being addicted to drugs at that stage.  I am told he suffers from asthma - medical treatment - and is a chronic smoker.

10.As a result of the intervention of a magistrate, various reports were obtained on the defendant which recommended he be hospitalised for his mental illness.  Those reports were obtained some time ago, so I obtained updated reports from two psychiatrists dated 18 July 2018.  I will take the conclusions from Dr Amy Liu’s report.  She says the defendant has heard what are described as non-existing voices for four to five years and was admitted to Princess Margaret Hospital in 2016 due to possible cannabis intoxication and pointing a pair of scissors against his mother and his father.  There was a recommendation for in‑patient psychiatric treatment which was rejected at the time.  He was eventually released from custody in November 2017, continuing to hear these voices when he was incarcerated and after being released.

11.In his account of the offence, he describes himself as having heard non-existing male voices telling him to attack the victim and then taking a pair of scissors, and he recalls he attacked the victim’s arms and back.

12.The defendant is diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  Antipsychotic medicine started at Siu Lam; improvement to his medical condition.  He still is receiving auditory hallucinations.

13.The conclusion is quite clear.  The defendant is diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and the problem of illicit drug use before his incarceration.  He suffers from active psychotic symptoms at present.

14.A period of in‑patient treatment is recommended under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for a period of 4 to 6 months.

15.Exactly the same conclusion was reached by Dr Dorothy Tang and other psychiatrists at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. Again, the diagnosis is exactly the same:  psychotic symptoms, paranoid schizophrenia.  A hospital order of 4 to 6 months is recommended.  The history in that report is almost exactly the same.

16.I will turn to sentence now of the defendant. For what I would call a normally‑mannered defendant, for a defendant who is in his right mind, the offence of wounding with intent can be sentenced to imprisonment where, of this nature, between 3 to 12 years.  An attack with a knife would result in a starting point that can be beyond 4 years’ imprisonment.

17.However, it is trite law that courts do not approach mentally disordered defendants in the same way as they approach defendants who are acting out of a normal rational mind.

18.By no stretch of the imagination can this defendant be said to be normal.  He has clearly been suffering from some form of schizophrenia for at least four years, and at the time of the incident he was clearly under the influence of paranoid schizophrenic illusions and delusions.

19.Clearly, the way in which his sentence has to be approached is very different from any other defendant, he is fortunate in this case in that there is a recommendation for treatment.  The recommendation for treatment can deal with the issue of the defendant’s mental instability. Particularly, it can protect the public from him.  Of course, although the hospital order is for a defined period, he will not be released unless he is of no threat to the general public, so I can be assured that the public will be protected by this order.  I can be assured also that the order takes into account the nature of his mental disability.

20.It is clear to me that the court must approach this sentencing in the light of the reports it has received.

21.Accordingly, I will make an order against this defendant that he serve a hospital order for a period of 6 months under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

22.I take the period of 6 months to give the visiting physicians and the physicians at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre the longest period possible for them to rectify the defendant’s mental disabilities, which clearly are still prevalent, as a result of my reading of the report.

23.So I make a hospital order for 6 months.