COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the lower court to one count of throwing corrosive fluid with intent and a second count of attempting to throw corrosive fluid on another occasion.
The case, unfortunately, happened in a shopping centre and the victim of the case, Mr Lam, operated a small shop in that centre selling ornaments. The defendant entered the shop on 12 April last year and suddenly threw a liquid which was contained inside a glass bottle at Mr Lam’s face. He felt a burning sensation and a report was made to the police. He was hospitalized for four days. There was chemical injury to both his eyes, and subsequent investigation revealed that the liquid that was thrown over his face contained hydrochloric acid.
Subsequently on 6 May last year, the defendant again appeared in the same shopping centre and an alert security officer of that centre immediately informed the police. When the accused was intercepted, she had a plastic bottle containing liquid which had hydrochloric acid in it.
Subsequent examination confirmed that hydrochloric acid is highly corrosive, which can cause severe skin burns and permanent visual damage. As has been already indicated by the prosecution, the victim, still at this time, has to use eye drops and his vision has never returned to what it was prior to the attack.
It was clear from the defendant’s video-recorded interview that she had never had any grudges against the victim apart from the fact that she considered him to be old, fat, short and ugly, and that is the reason she said she threw the acid over his face. So it is clear from that answer that there was certainly something not quite right as far as the defendant’s attitude was concerned, and therefore on the day of the plea, I had in my consideration various psychiatric reports that had already been made by psychiatrists in relation to the defendant’s mental condition. I also called for a probation officer’s background report to further understand the background of the defendant.
The defendant comes from a family with, it would appear, hardworking parents. She lived at home and it would appear that initially the defendant’s academic achievement was in the above-average percentile but, however, her grades eventually deteriorated and she frequently absented herself from school when she was in Form 4 and Form 5 and eventually quit her studying after completing Form 5. She started working and, unfortunately, started also consuming ketamine and there is a possibility this may have exacerbated her mental condition which she had or it may have started her on what is called amphetamine-induced psychosis.
I am grateful to the probation officer, Mr Lau, who gave a very detailed report as to the defendant’s background and mental condition. It is clear from the background report that the defendant does not have an insight into her problem and this is confirmed by the two visiting psychiatrists of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre that the defendant, even up to now, has no insight into her schizophrenia problem.
Dr Lam in her report stated that the defendant had reported to her auditory hallucination of strangers and God talking to her and that the defendant showed limited insight and believed she had no mental illness, and during the period of remand in Siu Lam, she had a slow and partial response to treatment and therefore it is Dr Lam’s opinion that the defendant would require further in-patient treatment, and so Dr Lam recommends a period of 6-month in-patient treatment ‑‑ a 6-month hospital order for further medication and to optimize her mental condition followed by certification under section 36 of the Mental Health Ordinance to Castle Peak Hospital for further rehabilitation.
Dr Lui, the other psychiatrist who made a report on the defendant, was similarly of the same opinion that the defendant requires further treatment at Siu Lam. And Dr Lui said the defendant is suffering from a bad form of schizophrenia which impaired her emotions, moral, thinking, judgment and self-control.
So in view of all these reports, I consider that the only way to help the defendant and to protect society is to accept the psychiatrists’ opinion and order a hospital order, and once the treatment to the defendant’s mental condition has been optimized, that will be followed by certification under section 36 of the Mental Health Ordinance to the Castle Peak Hospital for further rehabilitation.