COURT: The defendant, who is now aged 66, pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility when he appeared before me on 12 November.
In short, the defendant killed his neighbour by launching an extremely vicious attack with a newly purchased and very sharp kitchen knife. The neighbour was 74 years old and lived in a room just across the corridor from the defendant. The disturbance caused by this attack allowed neighbours to see what was going on and they observed the defendant repeatedly stabbing the deceased.
The post-mortem carried out by Dr Tsang Chak-chi, who found multiple stab wounds to the neck, the chest and the abdomen, amply bears out what the neighbours reported seeing. Major neck blood vessels were severed and injury was caused also to the liver and lung and the stomach amongst other injuries, and there was profuse bleeding internally. There were also multiple defensive injuries on the deceased’s arms and hands.
When the defendant was arrested, he said to the police that the deceased had seduced his wife and I quote his words: “I could not bear it any more so I chopped him with a knife”. That knife, according to the defendant, had been recently purchased in Shanghai Street and was purchased with this act in mind.
It should be plainly stated that the defendant’s belief about an affair between his wife and his neighbour, the deceased, was all in his mind. There is no actual substance to what he was saying.
Psychiatric opinion is that the defendant was suffering from a delusion giving rise to jealousy. Dr John Wong Yee-him indicated that the defendant’s beliefs were based on “bizarre and unsubstantiated reasoning that stems from this delusion” and he went on to state in his report that this was the basis of the offence.
Dr Oliver Chan, he, in a report dated 18 February this year, found that the defendant was suffering from a “delusional disorder, a type of psychotic disorder marked by his florid delusion of jealousy”.
Then Dr W K Choi(?), in a report dated 20 February this year, also agreed that the defendant suffered from an abnormality of the mind. This abnormality was induced by a disease of the brain, namely delusional disorder, and he considered that it was this disorder which was the real cause of the defendant’s conduct.
I requested updated reports from Dr Chan and Dr Choi so that I would be in a position to know whether the disorder was treatable. Those reports are now to hand. Dr Oliver Chan and Dr W K Choi, in reports dated 22 November and 25 November respectively maintained their opinion that the defendant suffers from delusional disorder. In quoting from Dr Choi’s report, he says:
“Delusional disorder is a chronic disorder. The prognosis of jealousy type is even worse and there is no telling when he can be safely discharged back into the community. Given the unfavourable prognosis, his dangerousness, poor insight and unwillingness to accept treatment, a prolonged period of compulsory in-patient treatment is indicated.”
In Dr Choi’s opinion, the defendant is still actively psychotic, emotionally charged and lacking in insight.
Turning to Dr Oliver Chan, he is also of the opinion that the in-patient treatment is necessary having regard to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and his lack of insight into his problem and he states - and I am going to quote again from the report:
“From a psychiatric point of view, delusional disorder could be managed with medication to decrease the level of conviction of such delusion and the associated emotionality coupled with psychological treatment to deal with the distorted thoughts.”
So both doctors take the view that the appropriate course is for the defendant to be committed to hospital for an unspecified time under the provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance, Chapter 136.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied, under the terms of section 45 of that Ordinance, on the written evidence of Dr Choi and Dr Chan, that the defendant is a mentally disturbed person and that the nature and degree of his mental disorder warrants his detention in the Correctional Services Department Psychiatric Centre. I am informed that a bed is available for him.
Accordingly, it is plainly right to make a Hospital Order as recommended by the two psychiatrists and that this be for an unspecified time. There is no doubt that the defendant is very ill and if he was left untreated would pose a danger to others. The Mental Health Review Tribunal will be able to review the defendant’s state of health from time to time and it will be for them to decide if and when the defendant can safely be released back into society.
Accordingly, I shall make an order that the defendant is committed to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for an unspecified time.