COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of attempted murder and was committed before me for sentence. The defendant has a psychiatric history, but a psychiatrist confirmed that he is fit to plead. In considering the sentence, I have taken into account the whole circumstances of the case, including its nature and facts, background of the defendant, mitigation put forward on his behalf and reports called by the court and submitted by the defence.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. There were four key persons in this case. PW2 was the person in charge of a residential care home for persons with disabilities, the MGH. The defendant was once a resident of MGH. After a complaint of the living environment, PW2 arranged for the defendant to live in a flat also run by MGH. A Mr Lam was an occupant in that flat. The victim had also been a resident of MGH but later became a street sleeper. PW2 agreed to let the victim stay temporarily in the flat. The defendant and the victim did not know each other despite they were staying in the same flat.
On the next day after the victim had moved in, at about 2.30 pm on 16 May 2021, when the victim was sleeping in the living room, the defendant suddenly took a cleaver from the kitchen and chopped the head of the victim two to three times and then fled. In pain, the victim noted nobody in the flat, he went downstairs. When he met Mr Lam, a report was made to the police. At the same time, the defendant called the police saying he had chopped someone with a knife.
A police officer who attended the scene located the defendant with the help of Mr Lam. The defendant admit to have taken a cleaver from the kitchen and chopped the head of his flatmate three times. He was arrested.
The victim was admitted to a hospital. He was conscious. Medical reports showed that there were two deep horizontal chop wounds at the left forehead, measuring 4 centimetres to 2 centimetres in size deep to bone with active bleeding. His left frontal skull bone was fractured. He received 16 stitches to his wounds and had to stay in the hospital for eight days.
In a video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted he had intended to kill the victim as he thought the victim had tried to frame him up by making false accusation against him of having taken his cigarettes.
The court was told that the defendant is single, 47 years of age. He had received education up to Form 1 level and had worked at the decoration company of his father for a short time and then worked as a factory worker and a waiter. At the time of the offence, he was unemployed and had applied for CSSA. His parents separated when he was aged 3 and he had been living with his grandmother and uncles for about 15 years. In 1988, his father remarried. The stepmother did not treat him well.
The defendant is not a first-time offender. Back in 1991, when he was 15 years old for a robbery offence, he was sentenced to training centre. In 1994, he was convicted for criminal intimidation. In 2011, he was convicted of AOABH and unlawful wounding. For these latter three convictions, hospital orders were imposed. In 2020, he was convicted of wounding and sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant has been known to mental health services since 1989 when he was at the age of 14. He was at the beginning diagnosed with adjustment with conduct disturbance. In 1994, the diagnosis was revised to a paranoid schizophrenia and dissocial personality disorder as he was presented with persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, thought broadcasting and affect incongruence. He was mostly an in-patient at the Castle Peak Hospital from the age of 19 to 39. There were repeated outbursts of violence both when he was hospitalised and when he stayed at home. He was labelled “intensive care” due to his repeated violence.
He had persistent interpersonal problems in hostels with repeated conflicts and violence. During the last few years prior to the incident, the defendant had been residing alternately in hostels and hospitals. With time, the illness had burnt out and florid psychotic symptoms receded. The defendant however remained self-centred, quarrelsome and impulsive.
After release from prison for the last previous conviction he had committed, he was admitted into the Castle Peak Hospital again between 19 March to 8 April 2021 as he was not coping with living alone. Then he was discharged to live in a hostel and out-patient psychiatric sessions had been arranged for him. His last attendance to psychiatric care was on 27 April 2021 and was observed to be stable.
In mitigation, learned counsel for the defence, Mr Michael Leung, stressed that the defendant was remorseful. He now understands what he did was wrong. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and wishes to apologise to the victim and everyone affected. Mr Leung told the court that the defendant has been receiving psychiatric treatment for 20 years.
A psychiatric report prepared by a Dr Wong was produced. Dr Wong is of the opinion that the defendant is suffering from schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder. She reported that the defendant’s level of functioning in areas such as work, interpersonal relations and self-care is markedly below level. Dr Wong is also of the view that it is likely that the defendant was suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia at the time of the offence. She cannot rule out the possibility that the thought of chopping the victim was a result of command hallucination.
In her opinion, the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind, namely schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. She said the defendant will likely require continuation of his medications and mental healthcare for his psychiatric conditions.
Mr Leung informed the court that after the defendant’s last discharge from hospital, he was arranged to stay in MGH. He however did not sleep well and complained of noise. About a month later on 15 May 2021, he was arranged to move and stay in the flat where the incident took place. Whilst Lam was already there, the victim moved in on the same day.
As regards to incidents, Mr Leung told the court that about 2 pm on the day of the incident, when Lam was not in the flat, the defendant heard the voice of a middle-aged man accusing him for taking his cigarettes and told him to return the items to him. As he felt the victim was making a wrong accusation against him, he had the idea of chopping him to die and kill him. He then did what he had done.
After the event, he called the police and waited for the police as instructed.
Apart from his psychiatric problems, the physical health of the defendant is not good. He has history of diabetes, varicose veins and gastritis. Mr Leung also told the court that since defendant has been hospitalised for 20 years, he has to be taken care of by social workers and hospital staff in his daily living.
Attempted murder is a very serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Protection of human life is a foremost objective of our system of criminal justice. Attempt to take a life should normally be denounced by a punishment that was appropriate to the circumstances.
There is no sentencing guidelines as this offence can be committed in many ways and the circumstances vary. Each case must be determined on its facts and circumstances. In this case, the defendant attacked a victim with a cleaver and the potential lethal blows was struck when the victim was sleeping. The victim suffered quite substantial harm but not really life-threatening provided timely medical care was available. The victim himself is known to the psychiatric service.
After the incident, his quality of sleep deteriorated and has nightmares of being attacked and chased. Clinical symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder appears to have an onset. I accept that this was not a case of premeditation. I am also prepared to accept that at the material time, the defendant was labouring under mental impairments.
As the defendant has a long history of psychiatric ill-health, I have considered the following matters:
(1) whether the defendant needs treatment for his mental health situation and if so to what extent he needs such treatment;
(2) the extent to which the offence was attributed to the mental impairment;
(3) the extent to which punishment is required; and
(4) the protection of the public.
Further psychiatric reports have been obtained so that the court can be assisted by professional assessment and opinion. The two public psychiatrists confirmed the mental health conditions of the defendant and are of the view that there is a very high risk that the defendant will commit further similar offences. In their opinion, further compulsory in-patient management is warranted. Hospital order is recommended by the two doctors.
Having considered the whole of the relevant circumstances, in particular the nature of the offence, the character and antecedents of the defendant and the degree of the mental responsibility of the defendant for the offence and having regard to the other available methods of dealing with him, which will be one of imprisonment of quite substantial term, in my judgment the most suitable method of disposing the case is by means of a hospital order pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. It facilitates treatments necessary for the defendant in a secure setting and protects the public from the potential risk posed, thus representing an appropriate balance between the interest of the defendant, a mentally-impaired person, and that of the public.
In light of the assessment of risk of reoffending, which I agree, and the long psychiatric history of the defendant, having regard to the opinion of the doctors, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of both the defendant and the community that the hospital order should be of no definite term.
The recommendation is for the defendant to be committed to the psychiatric centre rather than a mental hospital and provision has been made for him. I agree to the recommendation.
For the offence you have committed, I impose on you a hospital order of an indefinite term and authorise your admission and detention in a Correctional Services Department Psychiatric Centre under the order.