Read the full judgment text of CACC 000238/1993 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 November 1993 before Silke Ag. CJ, Mayo J, Sears J.
Criminal law – sentencing – Hospital Order – Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) s.45 and s.59 – Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210) s.22(2) – procuring execution of a valuable security – use of false documents to support alleged sale and purchase of goods with companies in China – bills of exchange totalling about HK$3,000,000 – applicant convicted on her own plea – two psychiatrists (Dr. Yu and Dr. Lam) diagnosed delusional disorder of the persecutory type and recommended a Hospital Order for one year – whether the sentencing judge erred in equating the period of the Hospital Order with the equivalent imprisonment sentence he would have imposed – held yes, the period of a Hospital Order must be related to the medical evidence of treatment required, not to a notional custodial term – whether the appropriate Hospital Order period should be 12 months – held yes, in accordance with the unanimous medical evidence – leave to appeal granted and application treated as the hearing of the appeal – Hospital Order altered from 2 years to 12 months – sentencing math below: judge below started at 4 years imprisonment, reduced to 3 years for guilty plea and clear record, and then further reduced to a 2-year Hospital Order to account for time spent in custody (including about 6 months in the United Kingdom awaiting extradition); Court of Appeal replaced that with a 12-month Hospital Order based on the medical evidence.
Legal issues: Basis for determining the period of a Hospital Order under s.45 Mental Health Ordinance · Appropriate length of the Hospital Order
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; application treated as the hearing of the appeal; Hospital Order reduced from two years to 12 months.