HKSAR v. Chan Yuk Ping

HCMA183/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. HCMA 183 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 139 OF 2005)

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court

Date of Hearing:  14 April 2005

Date of Judgment:  14 April 2005

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.In this case, the Appellant appeals her conviction for attempting to live off immoral earnings and her sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment that she received.  She has appeared in person before me.

2.The evidence in the Magistrates Court was given by the lady whose earnings were in question.  It was perfectly credible and the Magistrate believed it.  The Appellant did not give evidence below and, accordingly, the evidence was all one way and the conviction was inevitable.

3.Nothing that the Appellant has been able to say in the course of these proceedings before me leads me to think that I should exercise any of my powers to set it aside.

4.The Appellant had similar previous convictions and there was nothing at all wrong with the sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment on the basis of what the Magistrate knew.

5.What became apparent in the proceedings before me was that the Appellant was suffering some form of mental illness.  She did not come before me claiming that - I observed it - and at the last hearing it was apparent that two people had come to listen to the proceedings and they sat in the public gallery and, with the consent of the Appellant, I allowed them to address me.  They were her sister and a friend who was a tutor to her in English.  Both expressed concern for her mental health.  There was history of psychiatric intervention.  No mention of this at all had been made to the Magistrate.

6.Accordingly, I adjourned the case for some psychiatric reports and a psychologist’s report, and those reports speak with one voice and they say that the Appellant suffers from what is described as a manic episode which is a form of mental illness.  On the material before me, which includes some very long letters that the Appellant has written and the like, I have no doubt that there is no question of her faking her symptoms.

7.The reports recommend that I make a 4 month hospital order pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance and send the Appellant to Siu Lam where there is a place for her.  The Appellant is, in fact, agreeable to that course.

8.Accordingly, the order I shall make today is a hospital order under section 45 for a period of 4 months as I am satisfied that the conditions set out in section 45 have been met and I am sure that it is in everyone’s best interests.

Ms Ada Chan, Government Counsel, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant, Chan Yuk-ping, in person