HKSAR v. Sinn Renee

DCCC 941/2017

[2018] HKDC 1404

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 941 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal damage (Charge 2) and one charge of possession of Part I poison (Charge 3).

2.The case concerned the damage of some properties at a residential flat, situated at Kingswood Villas, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories.  The flat was under renovation.  The defendant was living in another flat on the same floor.

3.At around 4 am on 8 July 2017, a security guard of the building saw the defendant walk out from the flat.  In the same afternoon, when the person responsible for the renovation returned to the flat, he found that the iron gate of the flat was splashed with paint; a glass cover of the kitchen cupboard, the security phone on the wall and the water heater in the bathroom were also damaged.  The cost for repairing such damage was $8,800.  The defendant was later arrested.  Under caution, she said she entered the flat “to fix something”.  Upon search, a plastic bag containing 50 tablets containing zopiclone, which is a Part I poison, was found in her possession. She failed to produce any prescription for the 50 tablets.

4.The defendant is aged 39.  She has a clear record in Hong Kong.  In mitigation, Mr Yuen, counsel for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant was born in Hong Kong but migrated with her parents to the United States when she was a small child.  She was brought up and educated in the United States.  She returned to Hong Kong when her parents retired to settle on the Mainland.

5.In Hong Kong, the defendant started a relationship with a man whom she knew in Hong Kong.  The intimate relationship turned out to be a traumatic one.  She eventually broke up with him.  However, she developed the feeling that her ex-boyfriend always stalked her.  She feared that he might cause harm to her and her parents.

6.On the night in question, the defendant heard noises.  Fearing that the ex-boyfriend might be outside, she went to the flat, the door of which was not locked, to investigate.  She damaged the items in the flat for the fear that her ex-boyfriend might use them to harm her.

7.Worrying about the mental condition of the defendant, I adjourned the case to call for a probation officer’s report and a psychologist’s report to understand more of the background of the case and the health condition of the defendant.  I now have the probation officer’s report which provides a very detailed background of the defendant and the psychologist’s report which explores the psychological condition of the defendant.

8.To be brief, the psychologist, Mr Cheung, is of the view that the defendant’s report of what she had gone through in the present case was plausible.  Her version was also consistent with her mother’s account.  The defendant had experienced a few psychological symptoms and panic attack.  Overall speaking, she had been experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress as a result of the traumatising relationship with her ex-boyfriend prior to committing the offences.  There is a possibility that her perception that her ex-boyfriend wanting to hurt her and her parents might be delusional.

9.The defendant reported that she currently experiences no more fear.  She has no more bad dreams recently.  She says she is recovering from the traumatising event.  Although Mr Cheung recommends that the defendant should receive individual psychotherapy, the defendant denies the need for such treatment.  It is noted that the defendant tended to minimise her psychological problem.

10.The probation officer confirms in his report the defendant’s version about the traumatic experience of the defendant with her ex-boyfriend and the circumstances she committed the present offence.  It is reported that the defendant does not wish to receive probation service which she regards as a severe punishment because she wants to go back to the United States for a new life as soon as possible.

11.The mother was interviewed and she also considers that the resumption of normal life in the United States can help the defendant walk out from the torturing past with her ex-boyfriend.  The probation officer believes that the defendant, having her roots in the United States, cannot fully get rid of the fear with her ex-boyfriend and recover if she is required to continue to stay in Hong Kong.  The probation officer says, without hope but fear in Hong Kong, the defendant can benefit nothing from her stay in Hong Kong for the purpose of probation.  Probation is therefore not recommended.

12.From the information gathered, it is probable that the defendant caused the damage to the flat not for a criminal intent but to some extent under the influence of a medical or psychological condition. She might need assistance from experts to solve her psychological issues.

13.I spoke to the defendant and her mother in court.  It is the wish of the defendant to go back to the United States as soon as possible to start her new life.  She says what she needs now is time for her to heal.  She is quite confident that she can manage herself in the United States.  The mother says in the last few months the defendant has impressed her as a normal person.  The mother is also confident that the defendant can manage herself back in the United States.

14.It appears to me that the defendant is now in a much better condition than before.  I do not think that requiring the defendant to stay in Hong Kong for probation service or medical assistance will do more good than harm to the defendant.  The defendant has been remanded in custody for the present case for almost 3 months.  Mr Yuen confirms that the defendant is willing to pay compensation of $8,800 to the victim and she can afford to pay a fine.

15.Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the period of time the defendant has been detained, I order the defendant to pay a fine of $1,000 on each of the two charges.  She is also ordered to pay $8,800 as compensation to the victim.  The fines and the compensation are to be deducted from the bail money of the defendant.