HKSAR v. Tang Kin Kwong

CACC 488/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 488 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 72 OF 2001)

----------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------

Before : Hon Woo V-P, Stock JA and Yeung JA in Court

Dates of Hearing : 10 June 2005

Date of Judgment : 10 June 2005

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 January 2005 we allowed an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for murder and substituted a conviction for the offence of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.  Our reasons for that Decision are dated 31 January 2005.  For the purpose of sentence, we ordered the preparation of up-to-date psychiatric reports, and these we have now received.

2.The appellant denies, and has at all times denied, that he suffers mental illness; but it is perfectly clear from the testimony that was adduced at trial, and from the reports that we now have, that he has long suffered from a delusional disorder.

3.We have two reports, each from a registered medical practitioner; the first from Dr Yuen, the second from Dr Chan, a visiting Consultant Psychiatrist and visiting Psychiatrist respectively at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.  Each confirms that the appellant continues to suffer from a delusional disorder, which is a mental illness, and that there is a real risk that he will act violently again in the future.  Each recommends that for the appellant’s own well-being, and for the safety of others, he should undergo treatment for his disorder pursuant to the provisions of section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance; and, given the appellant’s absence of insight into his illness and the uncertain prognosis, that the order should be for an unspecified period.

4.We are satisfied that the appellant is a mentally disordered person and that the nature and degree of that disorder warrants his detention for treatment and, further, that it would not be appropriate for us to specify in the order the period during which he should be detained.  We are advised that provision has been made for his admission to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.

5.Accordingly, we make an order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136, authorising the appellant’s admission to, and his detention in, the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for treatment; and we shall not specify the period during which he shall be so detained.

Mr D G Saw, SC, DDPP leading Ms Vivien Chan, Government Counsel for Department of Justice for Respondent

Applicant ,TANG Kin-kwong , in person