COURT: Defendant, you were originally charged with two charges in the Magistrate’s Court. One was a charge of attempted murder and the other charge was that of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. You pleaded guilty on 17 April 2023 before a magistrate to the charge of wounding with intent. The prosecution accepted your plea to that charge and left the charge of attempted murder on the court file and not to be pursued with unless with leave of the court. On the same date before the magistrate, you admitted a Summary of Facts. As a result of your plea of guilty, you have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
You admitted that on 15 April 2022, at a residence in Chung Hoi House, Tin Chung Court, Tin Wing Road, Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long, New Territories, you unlawfully and maliciously wounded Chan Chou-shui with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Chan Chou-shui is your elder brother. He was at that time 72 years of age and at that time you were aged 63.
The facts can be set out as follows. On 15 April 2022, just before 10.45 am, you went over to your older brother’s house, which is the address as stated in the charge. At that time, your elder brother was sleeping when he heard the doorbell ring. He got out of bed and invited you into his residence. You and him were in the living room whilst his wife went to the kitchen to prepare tea.
Whilst there, you suddenly took out a chopper, which was 30 centimetres in total length, a blade of about 18 centimetres long, from your sling bag and attacked your elder brother’s neck, forehead and forearm. You told him you would chop him to death. Of course, your elder brother tried to ward off your attacks, but your chopper continued to land on him. Your elder brother and you struggled and he fell to the ground. When he fell onto the ground, you stepped on his neck multiple times and sat on his body, squeezing his neck with your left hand.
When your elder brother cried out “Why you chop me?”, his wife, your sister-in-law, immediately ran out of the kitchen and saw you sitting on top of your brother. As you were about to chop him again, his wife immediately went to grab the chopper from you with both hands. You told her you would chop her too. She struggled with you and finally snatched the chopper away from you. You then squatted down by your elder brother and grabbed his neck with both your hands. You stood up and kicked him in his private parts and stepped on his neck with your heel.
In the meantime, your sister-in-law was shouting out for help. Her neighbour responded and came to the flat. Though they tried to stop you from grabbing your elder brother’s neck, it was to no avail. The neighbour, who is a female, then sought assistance from her son, who came and managed to subdue you together with your sister-in-law and the female neighbour. You kept struggling, but the son of the neighbour was able to tie your legs with a USB cable. The female neighbour then called the police.
The police arrived at about 11.03 that day and at 11.25 you were arrested and cautioned for wounding. You nodded without saying anything. Police noticed you were in an emotional turmoil and it was impossible to communicate with you. You were then taken to Pok Oi Hospital. You were later hospitalised at Castle Peak Hospital and transferred eventually to Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre and then to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre where you have remained until today.
When your brother was sent to the Accident and Emergency Department at Tuen Mun Hospital at about 11.40 am with multiple chop wounds, he was found to have sustained the following injuries.
(i) The Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 out of 15;
(ii) An 8-centimetre deep laceration wound and a 3-centimetre laceration over his frontal scalp;
(iii) 3-centimetre laceration over his right neck;
(iv) 5-centimetre superficial flap-like laceration over his left arm;
(v) And a brain and cervical scan showed a right frontal bone fracture.
(vi) Stitches were applied to his wounds.
He was hospitalised for seven days from 15 April 2022 to 21 April 2022 and required follow-up treatment. He suffered from dizziness. This was partially controlled by medication. His frontal wound was healed and his Glasgow Coma score was then full.
Upon your admittance to Siu Lam on 12 and 13 January 2023, you were examined by two psychiatrists, Dr Amy Liu and Dr Kimberley Yip. Both psychiatrists opined that you were suffering from a severe depressive episode with mood congruent psychotic symptoms around the time of the offence. They did however certify that you were mentally fit to plead.
Mr Steven Kwan has written full mitigation on your behalf. I have taken into account what he has had to say. Prior to sentencing you today, I called for two updated psychiatric reports since you have been in custody and since those last reports were compiled nine months ago. I wanted an update condition to your situation.
I have now received those updated reports and as Mr Kwan has rightly pointed out, the reports remain with the same recommendation that both doctors recommend a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for a period of 1 year. I will turn to those psychiatric reports shortly.
In the meantime, I am informed, not only by Mr Kwan but by all the letters I received from your family and the daughter of your elder brother, that you and your elder brother had no grudges and the relationship between you was good. Your siblings have written heartfelt letters in mitigation on your behalf. I have taken into account all they have had to say. You have all along been a caring father and husband, brother and uncle. Needless to say that they were all shocked by this offence you committed. They have also pointed out that they are sad they were not able to detect that you were going through a depressive episode. All of them and also Mr Kwan has suggested that this tragedy may have been related because of your mental illness after an ischemic stroke you suffered in 2019.
You are aged 64 now, but as I mentioned at the time of the offence you were 63. You were born fourth among ten children in your family. You were born and raised in Fujian and came from a traditional Chinese family. You received education up to Form 1 in mainland China and came to Hong Kong in 1983 in your early 20s, married two years later and have been a law-abiding citizen until this offence.
Having come to Hong Kong, you worked as a factory worker for over two decades. You were the main breadwinner for the family, which included your wife, two sons and daughters. You later changed occupation to work as a security guard as it was a job which was less physically demanding.
Unfortunately, in April 2019, you suffered from an ischemic stroke and your health deteriorated. You retired in the same year and have been leading a simple retired life with your wife. Although you had a good relationship with all your siblings, it appears to me that perhaps during COVID times, you had not seen your brother over a while and your relationship, can I say, with your elder brother was not that close in that as I see from the reports, you have only really gathered with each other during the important festive seasons such as over Chinese New Year. Although I accept your relationship was not bad and you have had at that time no grudges with your brother.
As it is clearly stated from the reports that you had suffered from a severe depressive episode, as a result of this depression, you committed this offence under a paranoid delusion that you had that your brother was having an affair with your wife and had an affair with your elder daughter. It is apparent that these were the reasons why you had gone over to your brother’s house with that idea in your mind and inflicted these very serious injuries on your brother.
It is most fortunate that his wife was home and prevented much further severe injuries and more fortunate that her neighbours were able to come in and assist her and overpower you. It appears that three people were needed to stop you from further seriously hurting your brother. Had it not been for the intervention, no doubt this may have ended up far worse than it has already.
I had requested a victim impact report on your elder brother because no doubt whatever had happened between the two of you would have had consequences to your brother and your relationship. However, he declined to participate in the victim impact report.
The reports that I called for to inform me of your present mental condition is such that the recent observation of you from both psychiatrists show that you have an increase in paranoia and grievances against your brother, and this obviously is continuing. This, according to the psychiatrists, reflect a high violence risk against others, in particular to your elder brother. And therefore, they have recommended psychiatric in-patient treatment and rehabilitation.
Your counsel, Mr Kwan, has submitted various cases to this court to consider the principles of sentencing offenders with mental disorders. They were very helpful and assisted the court in deciding what sentence to pass. Clearly, in cases where offenders have committed offences as a result of a psychiatric illness, it is not of deterrence in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder but one where the court considers rehabilitation.
In your case, this is no different. Deterrence is not one of consideration for this court. In my view, the only possible sentence for you is for rehabilitation through a hospital order.
I have a recommendation from Dr Amy Liu and Dr Kimberley Yip that a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for a period of 1 year is recommended and that you serve your sentence at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. I am guided by their expertise in this matter.
Although I do consider the gravity of your offence to be extremely serious, I will follow the recommendation and sentence you to a hospital order under section 45 for a period of 1 year.
At paragraph 18 of Dr Liu’s report, it is stated there that a second stage of treatment and rehabilitation at the mental hospital, an arrangement of supervised accommodation would be expected after completion of the hospital order. This appears to me to be a reference to section 36 of the Mental Health Ordinance whereby it is a detention of certified patients where the doctors complete a certificate and order it to a District Judge for you to be detained in a mental hospital as opposed to a psychiatric centre.
In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the psychiatrists will and are taking into account your rehabilitation. And despite the gravity of the offence, I am satisfied that the order as suggested is appropriate.