HKSAR v. Li Chi Wah Edward

HCMA634/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.634 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC2007 OF 2005)

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Deputy High Court Judge D. Pang in Court

Date of Hearing : 7 September 2005

Date of Judgment : 7 September 2005

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment : 22 September 2005

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

REASONS  FOR  JUDGMENT

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

1.The appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of ‘Theft’.  He was sentenced to a hospital order of six months.  He now appeals against the sentence.

2.The prosecution case was that the appellant stole a quantity of assorted food items from the Jusco Stores in Kornhill Plaza.

3.The magistrate had this to say in his Reasons for Sentence :

“On convicting the Appellant I discovered that he had several previous convictions for theft.  He had been placed on 18 months probation in 1995 and had received suspended and immediate sentences of imprisonment up to a length of 2 months.  In 2002 he had been placed in Siu Lam for 3 months.  It was also apparent during trial that the appellant had psychiatric difficulties.  In order to explorer this I obtained a probation report and psychiatric reports. 

The Appellant was clearly not suitable for probation.  The Appellant resided with his parents.  He received a good Education.  He started to become mentally ill in 1995 he had been admitted to Kwai Chung and PYNEH hospital for periods of between one week and three months.  The Appellant was unstable and his most recent admission was in March 2005.  The psychiatric reports showed that the Appellant suffers from schizophrenia and personality disorder.  He had poor drug compliance.  The Appellants personality was psychopathic and he had mental personality deterioration.  His risk of re-offending was high.  I was informed a period of compulsory treatment was required.  He was recommended to serve a period of between four to six months at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.  The Appellant wished to be treated at the PYNEH.  Clearly the Appellant is mentally ill.  He could no longer be managed in the Community.  Both his family and the Community need to be protected from him.

I agreed that Compulsory inpatient treatment was needed.  I considered that of the range given between four to six months that the longest period available for treatment should be given.  I accordingly sentenced the Appellant to a six months hospital order.”

4.Having read the psychiatric reports, I am convinced that the appellant is a very ill person.  That this is so is also evident from his behaviour before me.  Repeatedly, he says he suffers such hardships as insufficient food and restricted family visits and asks for the order to be reduced by half and served in the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital.

5.The hospital order was made in accordance with the provisions under sections 45, 46, 47, 48 and 50 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap.136.  It is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.  Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre is, I am satisfied, an appropriate institution for him to receive his treatment and he should remain there.  The appeal is dismissed.

Mr Liu Yuen Ming, SGC of Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr Chau Hing Pang, instructed by Legal Aid Department, for the Appellant (to assist Court only)