CRIMINAL CASE NO. 54 OF 2010
COURT: The 77-year-old defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, following his committal to this court for sentence pursuant to section 81(b) of the Magistrates Ordinance.
The facts of the offence were that the defendant and the 87‑year-old victim were neighbours at a block of flats in an estate at Kwai Tsing. The defendant’s wife on occasions would go to the victim’s premises to collect old newspapers, which she would then sell.
The defendant became suspicious of the relationship between his wife and the victim, and on one occasion accused the victim of having an affair with his wife. Some months later, when the victim returned home to his flat, the defendant ran up to him from behind and shouted words to the effect he would chop the victim to death.
The defendant then chopped the victim with some form of melon knife. The attack was sustained and savage. The victim suffered multiple wounds over his body.
Another neighbour saw the attack, and called the police. The police arrived at the scene, and the victim was taken to Princess Margaret Hospital.
He was found to have suffered multiple chop wounds over his scalp, left eye, both upper limbs, and over his superficial abdominal wall. Subsequently, the victim’s injuries were operated upon. Those operations included a right hand neurovascular and tendon repair with fifth finger amputation; left hand tendon and nerve repair; the suturing of a scalp wound; and the repair of his left eye for scleral laceration and a ruptured eyeball.
At the time of sentencing, the victim has apparently suffered permanent deterioration of the eyesight in his left eye and continuing numbness and weakness in his right hand.
The police, while at the scene, had located the defendant nearby. He admitted to them that the motive for the attack was his suspicion that his wife and the victim were having an affair, and that he had armed himself with the knife and waited for the victim to return home, intending to chop him and teach him a lesson.
This was a serious attack, and in the normal course of events would warrant a deterrent sentence regardless of the defendant’s age.
However, I have been presented with two psychiatric reports by visiting psychiatrists to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. The doctors, Dr W K Choi and Dr S H Lui, agree that the defendant suffers from a persistent psychotic delusional disorder marked by a fixed and unshakable belief that his wife was having an affair with the victim. Dr Choi is of the view that the defendant has a high propensity for violence.
Both agree a period of 6 months’ in-patient treatment pursuant to an order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance is appropriate.
Considering all the circumstances of this case, including the matters set out in section 45(1)(c) of the Mental Health Ordinance, I agree with their views, and I would add that in the event that that period of treatment is insufficient and the defendant remains a risk to any individual or the public, then the avenue provided by section 36 of the ordinance is available to allow further psychiatric treatment of the defendant whilst he is detained in a mental hospital.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of section 45(1) of the Mental Health Ordinance, I order the defendant be admitted to and detained in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a period of 6 months.