HKSAR v. Wong Wing
|
DCCC439/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 439 OF 2009 ----------------------
----------------------
----------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ----------------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of Wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against a Persons Ordinance, Cap. 211. Facts of the case 2.At about 9 am on 4 March 2009, the defendant appeared suddenly in front of PW1 and he was brandishing a chopper. PW1 held on to his hand and struggled with him. During the struggle, PW1 sustained a 2 inch cut on his skull. At the same time another customer in the restaurant came to assist PW1 to subdue the defendant. The defendant dropped the chopper. He then threw something to PW1. It was subsequently found that they were sand, detergent and urine. A report was made to the police. The defendant was arrested. 3.Under caution the defendant admitted that he took the chopper, a bucket of sand mixed with urine and detergent from his home and he intended to scare PW1 since PW1 owe him a gambling debt of $5,000. He said he had no idea how PW1 got injured. Criminal Record 4.The defendant had one previous conviction of attempted indecent assault. He was sentenced to Siu Lam for 6 months and that was in 1996. Background 5.The defendant came to Hong Kong in 1964. He is married with three children. Two elder sons passed away. His relationship with his younger son was fair and he is now relying on CSSA for living. The psychiatric reports 6.There are altogether four psychiatric reports. Two were obtained in March 2009 when the defendant was brought to Fanling Magistrate Court for plea. The defendant has been detained in Siu Lam since March 2009. I therefore called for another two psychiatric reports in September 2009 because the defendant has been detained in Siu Lam for six months already. Both psychiatrists were aware that the defendant has a mental history since 1960 and he should continue to receive further treatment in Siu Lam. 7.However, there were different opinions by the psychiatrists as to the period of treatment. Dr Ho recommended at least 2 years while Dr Leung recommends 6 months. Dr Ho states that the defendant’s mental state remains relatively stable with no aggressive behaviours; however, he continued to harbour fixed paranoid ideas towards the victim despite being prescribed psychotic medicine. After clarification, in fact, Dr Leung agreed that the period of hospital order should be 2 years. 8.In mitigation I was told that the defendant accepts doctors’ recommendation. 9.After considering the medical reports and doctors’ recommendations I order the defendant to 2 years hospital order.
|