Tsui Chung-leung v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 414/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 August 1979.
1. The applicant, a man of 38 years with a history of mental disorder, sought leave to appeal against his sentence.
|
CACC000414/1979
Coram: Roberts, C.J., McMullin & Trainor, JJ. Date of Judgment: 10 August 1979 ----------------- JUDGMENT -----------------
1. The applicant, a man of 38 years with a history of mental disorder, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. 2. He pleaded guilty before a District Judge on a charge of blackmail. A hospital order, without any limitation as to time, was made against him under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance. 3. It was submitted to us that the order should specify the period for which he should be detained. 4. Before making the hospital order, the District Judge called forreports from two Psychiatric Specialists. 5. Dr. Law, of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, expressed the view that the applicant was suffering from another episode in his chronic recurrent depressive illness. 6. Dr. Law, of the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, expressed the view that the applicant was suffering from another episode in his chronic recurrent depressive illness. 7. Dr. Law recommended that the applicant should be committed to the Psychiatric Centre and estimated that in-patient treatment would take about four months. 8. The Judge also considered the report of Dr. S.N. Lee, of the same Centre. Dr. Lee advised that a period of treatment in hospital was advisable and recommended that the applicant be committed to the Centre for four months. 9. The District Judge, giving his reasons for sentence, said:
10. At the hearing of the appeal, we were provided with a further report from Dr. Law dated 16th July, 1979, in which the doctor said:-
11. In our view, it is proper for a court to issue a mental health order without any period being specified therein, unless the medical opinion of psychiatric specialists who have examined the patient is to the effect that the patient can confidently be expected to be fit for release within a specified period. 12. If the doctors cannot express this degree of confidence, it is wiser, both in the interests of the patient and for the protection of the public, that the order should have no term attached to it. 13. It will then be for the doctors in charge of the patient to recommend his release to the Governor at the appropriate time. 14. In addition, it is open to the patient to apply at any time for his release in accordance with the provisions of sections 49 and 50 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136. 15. For these reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence. Representation: Fi-lan CHUA (D.L.A.) for appellant Murphy for the Crown/Respondent |
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 414/1979