COURT: The defendant, Tam Wai-man, Stephanie, faced one count of murder, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. She pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility before me. The prosecution accepted her plea on that basis with my approval. I found the defendant guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility after she admitted to the Summary of Facts.
Now the Summary of Facts. The defendant was born in 1979. She married her husband surnamed Hui - I will call him Mr Hui - in 2019, and a son named Jasper, who was the deceased in this case, was born on 5 January 2021. Since September 2021, the family was residing at a public housing unit at Shui Pin Wai Estate, Yuen Long. I will refer to that place as “the Flat”.
Mr Hui was at all material times a furniture salesman, whereas the defendant had been a full-time housewife after giving birth to Jasper. At the time of birth, Jasper was diagnosed with a minor skull problem, but no follow-up was required after February 2022. Meanwhile, Jasper suffered from a condition known as torticollis, and physiotherapy was recommended. In addition to the monthly appointment with the physiotherapist, advice was given that Jasper’s shoulder needed to be massaged for 10 minutes each day. When massaged, Jasper would often scream and cry.
Now, the events leading to Jasper’s death. In the evening on 27 May 2022, Mr Hui heard the 16-month-old Jasper crying when being massaged by the defendant. He therefore told the defendant to stop, and the defendant was taken aback. She said nothing and took Jasper to the bedroom.
On 28 May 2022, Mr Hui left the Flat at around 8.30 am for work, leaving the defendant and Jasper at home. The defendant was then sleeping on their bed, whereas Jasper was sleeping in his crib. Upon Mr Hui’s return to the Flat at about 8.55 pm, he found Jasper’s crib was moved from the bedroom to the living room. The bedroom door was shut. Entering the bedroom, Mr Hui found near the bed a pan of burning charcoal placed on a portable gas stove. The gap at the bottom of the door was blocked with a blanket. At that time, the door for the cats connecting the bedroom and the living room and the plastic curtain separating the living room and the balcony were both sealed with adhesive tapes.
A suicide note written by the defendant was found next to the couple’s bed. The defendant apologised for her selfish behaviour. She expressed frustration at being disliked by Jasper and scolded by Mr Hui for massaging Jasper when the daily massage was recommended by the physiotherapist. Unwilling to live with Mr Hui anymore or to leave Jasper to Mr Hui’s care, she decided to leave the world with Jasper.
Mr Hui found the defendant and Jasper lying on the bed inside the bedroom. He immediately removed the pan of charcoal to the living room and made a report to the police. At that time, Jasper was unconscious and not breathing, whereas the defendant was gasping for breath.
A number of ambulance men soon arrived at the Flat. They detected no breathing or pulse in Jasper. They examined the defendant and found her breathing and had no observable injuries. The defendant and Jasper were rushed to Pok Oi Hospital for medical treatment.
On arrival at the Pok Oi Hospital at 9.22 pm, Jasper was in a coma with no breath, pulse or blood pressure. CPR and resuscitation were performed. Urgent blood testing showed that the blood carboxyhaemoglobin level was at 77 per cent, well above the lethal level of 50 per cent, whereas the blood oxyhaemoglobin level was only at 8 per cent, substantially below the normal level. Jasper failed to respond to resuscitation and was certified dead at 10.19 pm on 28 May 2022.
And now the treatment of the defendant. The defendant was unconscious upon arrival at the Accident and Emergency Department of the Pok Oi Hospital. Both pupils were sluggish in response, and her blood carboxyhaemoglobin level was 27.3 per cent on arrival, which was above the toxic level of 20 per cent but below the lethal level of 50 per cent. Meanwhile, her blood oxyhaemoglobin level was at 71.1 per cent, well below the normal level of 94 per cent to 97 per cent. Her condition was compatible with carbon monoxide poisoning. She was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit of the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital for further management. There she received hyperbaric oxygen therapy on 29 and 30 May 2022. She was transferred back to the Pok Oi Hospital for treatment in the ICU on 30 May 2022.
On 3 June 2022, the defendant was admitted to the Castle Peak Hospital and was provisionally diagnosed with depressive episode. She was given an antidepressant. She was later discharged from Castle Peak Hospital to attend court on 7 June 2022.
During her remand at the Castle Peak Hospital from 3 to 7 June 2022, the defendant was examined by a psychiatrist, Dr Kimberly Yip. In her report, Dr Yip stated that the defendant was new to mental health services, and she had no reported family history of mental illness. The defendant also denied psychotic symptoms or history of being abused. Meanwhile, the defendant reported a deterioration of mood in the past two years due to a number of stressors, including:
(1) deteriorating marital relationship with Mr Hui;
(2) health issues relating to Jasper, and
(3) financial stress in that Mr Hui had accumulated a credit card debt of some HK$30,000 to HK$40,000 in the past year.
Harbouring fleeting suicidal ideas, the defendant bought a bag of charcoal in January 2022 and hid it in her closet. She also purchased a bottle of hypnotics. One month prior to the incident, her mood further worsened due to her son’s health condition and the lack of support from Mr Hui. She, however, largely maintained her sleep or appetite.
Now the inquiries at the scene. The police conducted inquiries inside the Flat and found, among other things, the following:
(a) a suicide note next to the couple’s bed in the bedroom;
(b) a blanket on the floor inside the bedroom next to the door;
(c) a pan of ashes on a portable gas stove in the living room just outside the bedroom;
(d) the plastic curtain separating the living room and the balcony and the cat door were both sealed with adhesive tapes;
(e) a bag of charcoal inside the kitchen;
(f) a metal cup, a spoon and a syringe in the kitchen sink;
(g) a bottle of “Natrol” Melatonin tablets with 89 pills therein.
The metal cup was found to contain about 100 millilitres of a liquid containing Melatonin, which is a hypnotic, whereas the syringe contained traces of a liquid containing Melatonin and Ibuprofen. It is an anti-inflammatory medicine.
Now the autopsy of Jasper. Autopsy was performed on Jasper by forensic pathologist Dr Tsang Chak-chi on 31 May 2022. Apart from cherry red hypostasis on the back of the body and a small abrasion on the right big toe, no recent external injuries were found. Nor was there any obvious congenital deformity.
Toxicological analysis of bodily samples taken from Jasper revealed that carboxyhaemoglobin was detected in the blood at a level of 64 per cent saturation. Melatonin was detected in the blood at a level of 0.05 microgrammes per millilitre and in the stomach content.
The autopsy revealed no natural disease that could account for the death of Jasper. Dr Tsang confirmed that:
(1) the presence of carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood at a level of 64 per cent was sufficient to be fatal;
(2) carbon monoxide has a higher affinity to haemoglobin than oxygen, causing tissue hypoxia, and it could directly cause cellular toxicity by inhibiting cytochrome oxidase that worsens hypoxia; and
(3) Melatonin is a dietary supplement for treating sleep disorder and is also produced endogenously in humans.
In view of those findings, Dr Tsang concluded that Jasper’s cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning.
Now the cautioned interview of the defendant. Following the defendant’s return to the Pok Oi Hospital on 30 May 2022, the police approached her for inquiries on 1 June 2022. The officers conducted an interview with the defendant in Ward 7S. During the 45-minute video-recorded interview, the defendant was arrested for the killing of Jasper. Under caution, she admitted that she had done so because she was unhappy at home.
In her interview, the defendant made a full and detailed admission of the offence. She stated that Mr Hui had scolded her in the evening of 27 May 2022 for massaging Jasper. She was unhappy and cried. As a result, she decided to commit suicide with Jasper by charcoal burning on the following day.
In the morning on 28 May 2022, the defendant woke up at around 9 am and had breakfast. Sometime after 11 am, she used adhesive tapes to seal the curtain separating the living room and the balcony as well as the cat door. She wrote a suicide note by copying a draft she had previously stored in her mobile phone. Later on, she grinded four sleeping pills, mixed the powder with water and fed them to Jasper with a syringe. She then took eight sleeping pills herself. After doing so, she set up the gas stove, burned the charcoal and placed the stove inside the bedroom. She and Jasper fell asleep together. It was her intention to die with Jasper.
The defendant admitted purchasing the bag of charcoal and liquefied gas cartridge in early 2022 with a view to commit suicide. Mr Hui did not know about these items. When shown a bottle of Melatonin pills found in the kitchen, the defendant admitted purchasing it online in January 2022 for consumption when burning charcoal. She fed four tablets to Jasper and consumed eight tablets herself. She had not consumed those pills previously.
The defendant stated that she had harboured the idea of committing suicide for over a year since 2021. She felt that she had been poorly treated by Mr Hui. When asked for specifics, the defendant identified two incidents. Firstly, Mr Hui had once dragged her out of the bedroom following an argument over monetary affairs. He then forcefully pressed her down on a chair and refused to let her go. Secondly, during an argument in 2021 over a possible divorce and a contest over custody of Jasper, Mr Hui grabbed hold of her hand and tried to take Jasper away from her. She refused to let go and Mr Hui pressed on her hand forcefully. On the impact on her as a result of her arguments with Mr Hui, the defendant said that they had adversely affected her temper but denied being paranoid. She had never told anyone about her suicide plan and had never attempted suicide before.
Now background inquiries on the defendant. Inquiries were made with the defendant’s mother and social worker.
Prior to the incident, the defendant had been complaining to her mother about her arguments with Mr Hui, but the mother had no knowledge about the reason for the defendant’s suicide attempt. Meanwhile, the social worker confirmed that she had met the defendant in person twice, in October 2021 and April 2022 respectively. On both occasions, the defendant discussed her marital problem and her argument with Mr Hui but made no mention of her suicidal thoughts or that she had been subjected to domestic violence.
Now the defendant’s psychiatric condition. Prior to this offence, the defendant was not known to the public mental health system. Reports from two specialist psychiatrists have been obtained and they were placed before the court.
The first one is a report from Dr Li Cheuk-wing, a specialist in psychiatry in private practice, dated 25 March 2024. In preparing his report, Dr Li had interviewed the defendant at the Tai Lam Centre for Women for around two hours and 20 minutes on 27 February 2024.
The second report is by Dr Dorothy Tang Yuen-yee, visiting psychiatrist of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, dated 23 July 2024. In compilation of her report, Dr Tang had repeatedly examined the defendant during the defendant’s remand at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.
Both psychiatrists are of the opinion that at the time of the killing, the defendant suffered from Major Depressive Disorder in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, called DSM-5. Her Major Depressive Disorder was classified as severe. Her symptoms included pervasive low mood, weight loss, poor sleep, low energy level, feeling of worthlessness and recurrent suicidal ideation. She was then suffering from an abnormality of mind arising from Major Depressive Disorder which had or had likely substantially impaired her ability to form rational judgment and exercise self-control.
And before me, the defendant accepted and admitted that she had on 28 May 2022, in Hong Kong, unlawfully killed Jasper by burning charcoal inside the Flat. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility in satisfaction of the indictment for murder.
Now the background and mitigation. The defendant was born in October 1979, so she is now 45 years of age. She had a clear record. Defence counsel, Miss Joyce Wu, in her written submission basically provided information on the defendant to fill the gaps left out in the Admitted Facts.
The defendant was said not to have a close relationship with her father who was strict or her mother or her sister when she was growing up. She did not do well academically but she attended courses after she finished secondary school and obtained qualification to work as an accounts clerk. The defendant had a couple of failed romances before she met Mr Hui. She was very happy when she got married with Mr Hui in Okinawa, with the ceremony attended by family and friends.
Shortly after the wedding, the defendant fell pregnant. Mr Hui, who was then a divorcee and already had a daughter with his ex-wife, was not keen to start a family with the defendant even though he and the defendant had discussed about this and he had agreed. He then even asked the defendant to have an abortion which the defendant refused. Mr Hui was not supportive throughout the defendant’s pregnancy and did not accompany her to antenatal appointments. He also threw tantrums and shouted at the defendant over trivial matters.
After Jasper was born, Jasper was found to have something wrong with his skull. He also suffered from torticollis, meaning that his little head leaned to one side. The defendant was very worried about it and she was required to take Jasper for physiotherapy on a regular basis. Mr Hui did not accompany her to take Jasper to those appointments. The defendant was advised by the physiotherapist to massage little Jasper’s neck twice every day but the poor baby screamed and cried when she did so. Mr Hui did not help with the massage but told defendant to stop doing so, saying that it was of no use. According to the defendant, Mr Hui did not help to take care of Jasper either. When Mr Hui was at home on leave, he played games with his mobile phone or the two cats they kept at home.
The relationship between the defendant and Mr Hui had gotten worse. Apart from the discord over Jasper’s condition, the defendant also found out that Mr Hui owed several ten thousand credit card debts. Not only that Mr Hui did not give the defendant any emotional support, he did not give her financial support either. As the defendant stopped working after Jasper was born, she was using her own savings for household expenses and buying things for Jasper. She worried about her own financial position. She was tearful when she was with Mr Hui.
Jasper was born at the time when the COVID-19 pandemic was rife. Mr Hui forbade the defendant to take Jasper out. The defendant could only secretly take Jasper out to attend church or see her family when Mr Hui was at work, and she had to be back home before Mr Hui returned home. The defendant felt suffocated, helpless, lonely, exhausted and melancholy. She did not realise that her mental health was deteriorating and that she suffered from Major Depressive Disorder. As disclosed in the Admitted Facts, the defendant sought help from a social worker. However, Mr Hui put the blame on the defendant, and the family problem could not be resolved. There had been occasions when Mr Hui was physically aggressive to the defendant.
When the defendant suggested divorce, Mr Hui threatened to take custody of Jasper. The defendant felt imprisoned in an unhappy marriage with no way out. She felt unloved and useless, and she harboured suicidal ideas. She bought charcoal and ordered hypnotic pills online in case she wanted to kill herself. However, the idea of suicide soon subsided.
On the evening before the offence, defendant was told off by Mr Hui when she massaged Jasper’s shoulder in accordance with the advice from the physiotherapist. She became upset and cried. She decided to commit suicide with burning charcoal and taking Jasper with her. The defendant was worried that Mr Hui would not take care of Jasper after she was gone, and Mr Hui had never shown any interest in Jasper, just like he showed no interest in the daughter he had with his ex-wife. In the defendant’s warped mind, she thought Jasper would be better off with her in heaven, and she proceeded to commit suicide and to kill Jasper at the same time by burning charcoal in the bedroom of the Flat as outlined in the Admitted Facts.
The defendant was utterly upset when she found out that she did not die but her beloved son Jasper had died. It was not known at the time of the offence that the defendant was suffering from a severe case of Major Depressive Disorder. Miss Wu submitted that the defendant’s condition had since improved. The defendant had since divorced Mr Hui. Her relationship with her parents and her sister had improved. From being introverted and feeling small and useless, she had become active and sociable. She engaged herself fervently with matters concerning her Christian faith, and she gained the trust and support from people working for the church, Christian organisation and inmates. These people, together with the defendant’s family members and friends, wrote to this Court, asking for leniency on behalf of the defendant.
Miss Wu referred to the cases submitted by the prosecution, to which I will refer later, and submitted that the circumstances of the present case is not as serious as those submitted. Miss Wu particularly emphasised the change in the defendant since her remand and the discovery of her mental illness. The defendant had shown great improvement in her social skill and ability. The defendant has unwavering support from her family and the church. Not only that she continued to further her studies to equip herself, she also encouraged her fellow inmates to do so. As I have mentioned, her fellow inmates also wrote to this Court, seeking leniency on the defendant’s behalf.
Miss Wu also placed emphasis on the fact that the defendant had been in custody for three years which, it is submitted, is equivalent to a sentence of 4½ years after remission, meaning a starting point of 6¾ years. Miss Wu asked this Court to exercise compassion and consider imposing a Probation Order. I decided to call for a Probation Officer’s report and an up-to-date psychiatric report on the defendant prior to sentence.
Now the Probation Officer’s report. The probation officer, Ms Chu, after giving me a very detailed report on the defendant and her relationship with various people, in particular Mr Hui and Jasper, prior to the killing, recommended that provided the defendant is considered suitable for outpatient psychiatric treatment, a 12-month Probation Order with special condition that the defendant shall receive psychiatric and/or psychological treatment as directed by the PO.
The further up-to-date psychiatric reports. I have up-to-date psychiatric reports from two psychiatrists, Dr Dorothy Tang and Dr Kimberly Yip. I do not think there is any need to repeat the background and the diagnosis mentioned in the reports. Both doctors recommended a Hospital Order of 9 months to be served in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre followed by inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation and psychological input focusing on her emotion regulation and stress coping at Castle Peak Hospital upon the expiration of her sentence.
Bearing in mind the defendant was admitted into the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on 7 June 2022 and was transferred to Tai Lam Correctional Institute for Women in April 2023, indicating on the face of it that the defendant was not receiving inpatient treatment in the Correctional Services Department, I asked for further psychiatric report to clarify this.
On the adjourned hearing on 24 June 2025, which is today, I had the further reports by both Dr Kimberly Yip and Dr Dorothy Tang. I do not think there is any need to go into details of these reports. Suffice it to say that both doctors had given me sufficient explanation why there is still a need for the defendant to receive inpatient treatment. Just to mention it briefly, while the defendant’s symptoms had been well controlled with pharmacological treatment, symptoms control is often the first stage of treatment to be followed by consolidation of her improvement and relapse prevention. Thorough rehabilitation programme is difficult to conduct during the remand period as the defendant would be preoccupied with the legal proceedings and outcome of the case.
So in view of the gravity of the offence and the high suicide and violence risks associated with the defendant’s severe Major Depressive Disorder, a Hospital Order for 9 months is recommended. I should mention here that through her counsel, the defendant asked to be sent to Castle Peak Hospital to serve the Hospital Order if the court so ordered. I understand from both doctors that a Hospital Order will be served at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under the Correctional Services Department. That will be the first stage of rehabilitation focusing upon various treatments.
Upon expiry of the Hospital Order, the defendant will be transferred to the Castle Peak Hospital for the second stage, which focuses on community integration. Both Dr Tang and Dr Yip will continue to be the defendant’s psychiatrists, whether at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre or at the Castle Peak Hospital.
Now, I will mention the authorities. Mr Lui for the prosecution very helpfully referred me to five cases. All involved defendants facing murder charges be eventually found guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility, either by the defendant pleading guilty to such, or being accepted by the prosecution, or by the Court of Appeal quashing the verdict of murder and substituting it with manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.
Now, the first case is R v Lee Sau Ping, CACC 189/1995. This is a case decided in 1995 on appeal. The defendant killed her five-year-old daughter and was charged with murder. She was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. Her application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The facts disclosed that the defendant had previously abused the victim, and the victim was under the care of Po Leung Kuk. The defendant took the victim out from Po Leung Kuk and reported her being taken to the Mainland by her friend. A report was made to the police. The victim was found nine days later, dead inside a nylon bag near a pier. Defendant admitted she had put the victim inside the bag and dumped her into the sea to drown her. There was no dispute that the defendant had planned this for a few days.
The Court of Appeal said that there was a wide range of sentence from probation to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal did not think the sentence of 10 years was manifestly excessive and refused leave.
The second case is HKSAR v Chan Ka Fai, CACC 100/2008. This case involved a defendant stabbing his mother to death. He then tried to commit suicide by cutting his own left wrist after leaving a suicide note. The defendant lost his job two months before the killing and pretended to go to work every day. He was $400,000 in debt and had spent the $600,000 the family received following the death of his father in a work-related accident two years earlier.
The defendant claimed that after he had told his mother the truth, she kept scolding him, which made him annoyed and confused. He therefore went to the kitchen and fetched a knife to slash her neck. After she fell onto the sofa, the defendant stabbed her indiscriminately and suffocated her with a cushion. After moving the body to the bedroom and tidying up the scene, he wrote a suicide note and attempted to kill himself. He was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
The third case is HKSAR v Chiu Wai Kan Vicken (No. 2) [2011] 5 HKLRD 422. The defendant killed his 75-year-old stepfather. At the time of the killing, the defendant was under the influence of drug-induced psychosis which was self-induced as the defendant had started abusing ketamine since the age of 16. The killing was committed when the defendant was 23. The defendant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal when his verdict of murder was quashed and substituted by manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.
The fourth case is Secretary for Justice v Chan Man Yum Candy [2011] 5 HKC 72. This is in fact a case I did. The respondent pleaded guilty to manslaughter after killing her 13-month-old adopted daughter. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation. The Secretary for Justice applied for a review of sentence.
The facts disclosed that the respondent adopted the child from a Mainland orphanage. First, the defendant hired a domestic helper to look after the baby. She later had to look after the baby herself after she sacked the first helper and then a second helper. The baby had trouble keeping food down and often cried. The respondent was under stress as her savings were reduced due to the economic situation in 2008. Her family was concerned about her mental health. The respondent sought help and had an appointment with a psychiatrist, but the baby was killed before she had the appointment.
On the day in question, she was exhausted after seeking a repayment of a loan in the Mainland. She returned to Hong Kong and picked up the baby from her mother and had an argument with her mother over the feeding of the baby. The baby was in distress when the respondent took her home. A neighbour saw the respondent repeatedly holding the baby upside down and throwing her on the ground. The neighbour then saw the respondent trying to revive the baby. Within 18 minutes of the first abuse, the respondent took the baby to the hospital. The baby died five days later when the life support machine was turned off.
Autopsy showed four fractures of the skull and other injuries. There was no indication of previous abuse to the child. The respondent was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from bipolar affective disorder. She was sent to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. While on remand, the respondent was seen by another psychiatrist who said the offence could be the result of extreme frustration and impairment of impulse control caused by manic symptoms.
The trial judge took full cognisance of the nature of the violent act and said if the respondent had not been suffering from mental illness at the time of the death, a heavy sentence would have been imposed. The trial judge recognised there were special circumstances and took into account that the respondent had done a lot of charity work and made the probation order. The court heard that the condition of the respondent was under control through medication and she had complied with the terms of the Probation Order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, saying, among other things, that it is open to a judge to impose a sentence on an offender in the position of the respondent other than a sentence of imprisonment.
The last authority is HKSAR v Lee Fung Yee [2011] 5 HKLRD 351. In that case, the defendant killed her 15-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter. She was charged with murder. Her plea of guilty to manslaughter was rejected by the prosecution. After trial, she was convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, her sentence was reduced to one of 4 years. The facts disclosed that the defendant met a Taoist priest. We will just call him “H”. She claimed to believe H was a god, H took her virginity and used her for his sexual gratification. She has three children with H, including the two victims.
When the defendant learned that H had other women, she decided to kill herself and the victims as she did not want to leave them behind. She laced orange juice with sleeping pills before burning charcoal in the room. When firemen and police came as a result of report made by the caretaker, the defendant told them she was burning incense and prevented them from searching the bedroom, saying the victims were sleeping. She then turned off the phone and went to sleep. When she woke up, she found the two victims dead. Police was alerted.
At trial, the defendant claimed to be under H’s complete control and killed the victims in a weakened mental state after argument with H over other women. The jury accepted the opinion of a psychiatrist on the defendant and unanimously returned a manslaughter verdict.
The Court of Appeal said, among other things, that protection of human life was the foremost objective of our system of criminal justice. The community was entitled to expect that the unlawful taking of a life be denounced by a punishment that was appropriate to the circumstances. The defendant bore a high degree of responsibility. The killing was not done on the spur of the moment but was carefully planned. Parents have no right to decide whether their children should live or not.
Having regard to the opinion of the psychiatrist, a 7-year imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal adopted a starting point of 6 years and reduced it to 4 as the defendant always intended to plead guilty and did plead guilty to manslaughter.
Of these five authorities, only three concern the killing of one’s own child, natural or adopted. I do not find the other two authorities particularly helpful. In my view, the circumstances of killing in the last case - that is the Lee Fung Yee case - were similar to the present one: plan to kill the victims when the defendant planned to commit suicide; administer sleeping pill to victim first, and then burn charcoal to kill by the inhalation of carbon monoxide. The reason triggering the defendant, Lee Fung-yee, and this defendant to commit suicide and kill the offspring was not the same but both defendants felt helplessness in their situation and were both affected by their mental illness.
In the present case, while the suicide and killing was planned, there was no deliberate act to prevent law enforcement officer or fireman from intervening. So I am of the view that comparatively speaking, the culpability of this defendant, when compared with Lee Yung Yee, was less in scale.
Having considered all the circumstances of the offence and the defendant’s background, including her mental condition at the time of the offence and her present mental condition, but for the fact that two psychiatrists are still of the view that the defendant needs inpatient treatment for her mental illness and is not ready to be released into the society, I would have considered sentencing the defendant by placing her on probation with special condition as suggested by the PO, particularly bearing in mind the period the defendant had already been in custody. That is 3 years.
However, as the defendant is still in need of inpatient psychiatric treatment, I accept the recommendation of the two psychiatrists and order the defendant to a Hospital Order for 9 months under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.
So I will pass the actual sentence. Can you stand up, please, defendant? So for the offence of manslaughter, the defendant is sentenced to a Hospital Order for 9 months under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.