COURT: The defendant, Mr Chan Hung-fun, faces a count of murder, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
He suffers from dementia and is found by a jury to be under disability so that he is not fit to be tried.
He is found by the same jury to have committed the charge, that is, killing the victim set out in the indictment, Mr Yip Hee-sing.
Evidence in the Trial
The accused and the deceased had known each other for 20 to 30 years. They were neighbours and had worked together. The accused lost his job because the deceased said bad things about him. The deceased frequently asked the accused to lend him money and the accused would lend him several hundred to $1,000, and the deceased made repayment from time to time.
On the day in question, that is, 9 June 2020, the deceased went to the home of the accused to borrow money. The accused picked up a knife and stabbed the deceased. He continued to do so even when the deceased ran out of the flat of the accused.
According to the forensic pathologist, there were not less than 50 stab wounds or cut wounds on the body of the deceased and in two of the wounds, the lung was penetrated, causing aspiration of blood in the lung. The forensic pathologist is of the view that the cause of the deceased’s death was due to the loss of blood of the wounds and suffocation because of the aspiration of blood in the lung.
The accused admitted that he had stabbed the deceased when the police made inquiries with him at the scene when he was arrested and cautioned and in the video-recorded interview.
There is evidence from two psychiatrists that the defendant suffers from dementia and is not fit to stand trial.
Psychiatric Reports
Before sentencing, the court has obtained reports of the accused by two psychiatrists. They are of the view that the accused suffers from dementia. Due to his impaired judgment and self-control, he poses danger to others and is in need of in-patient treatment. They recommend the accused to be admitted to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under section 76(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221, and his future discharge and arrangement of a supervised placement will be subject to the review and decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Mitigation
Counsel for the accused, Mr Arthur, has nothing to add to the reports of the two psychiatrists.
Sentence
In the interests of the accused and society, the court adopts the recommendation of the two psychiatrists and the accused is to be admitted to a psychiatric institution of the Correctional Services Department, and his discharge and arrangements of a supervised placement is subject to the review and decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under part IVA of the Mental Health Ordinance.