HKSAR v. Chan Muk Shui

DCCC 332/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 332 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. They involved two victims. Defendant, you knew both victims who are sisters and have known them for several years. They are in their late 40s and early 50s.

2.On the 12th February this year, you went to their home in the evening.  The victims let you into their home.  Without warning, you produced a paper cutter and cut one of the victims across the back of her neck.  A struggle ensued.  You managed to cut both of the victims, and you in turn also received an injury.  The victims’ father, PW3, was at home and called the police.  The police arrived whilst you were still struggling with the two sisters.  You were subdued and arrested. 

3.You told the police that you had come to their home to chop them for playing black magic on you.  In a subsequent interview again under caution, you admitted attacking them and admitted buying a paper cutter to take to their home.  You wanted to convince them to stop playing black magic upon you, and when they refused, you attacked them. 

4.The victim of Charge 1 received wounds to her neck and two fingers.  Her neck wound was stitched, sutured and her fingers dressed.  The victim of the 2nd charge, PW2, also received injuries.  She had two cuts to her neck area.  One was superficial.  One had to be stitched. She also received an injury to her thumb.  You sustained some lacerations to your left forearm and an abrasion on your face.

5.Defendant, you are 65 years old, previously had a clear record.  The facts of this case led to two psychiatric reports being obtained in the magistracy.  I have had sight of those reports.  Their diagnosis was that you were suffering from a delusional disorder but fit to plead.  You have pleaded guilty.  You clearly need help.  I have heard full mitigation put forward on your behalf.  What is relevant is that at your age, you have never committed an offence and have a clear record.  You have worked hard all your life.  You have been a good husband and father. 

6.Your son has written a letter on your behalf, explaining this to the court.  Your family only noticed recently that you have developed a suspicious nature which led to this offence.  Your son has written that you have just become a grandfather, and your family accept you need to take responsibility for the offence but hope you will get the help you need.

7.I have obtained two up-to-date psychiatric reports.  I do not propose to go into the details but, in essence, you until now have not exhibited any mental health issues.  About seven years ago, you met these victims and their father, PW3.  It seems they were part of some worshipping group worshipping the Sun God, and the leader of this group told you that the victims had strong magical powers.  She wanted to introduce you to them.  You did meet them and you were accompanied by your wife.  Not long after, you developed some health issues and you thought that it was these victims who, practising some black magic, cast spells on you and your wife. You told the psychiatrist that even the victims’ father, PW3, performed some ritual upon you but was unable to rid you of this black magic.

8.You have in the past confronted the victims about it but they have denied your allegations, but you became more and more convinced.  That led to this offence and you buying a paper cutter to confront them.

9.Both doctors are of the view that you still have active psychotic symptoms of persecutory delusions and that they continue - the victims - to harm you.  Both doctors say you have no insight into your mental condition, and there is a diagnosis of a delusional disorder with a differential diagnosis of schizophrenia.  Both doctors recommend a hospital order for a period of three months.

10.Now, I have considered these reports, the previous reports, your background, the offences and the injuries suffered by the victims.  I am mindful that if you had not had any mental health issues, you would be for these offences looking at a term of imprisonment of perhaps several years.  But I am also mindful that if you did not have any mental health issues, you would not have committed these offences and you would be a grandfather with a clear record enjoying your retirement.  I must balance the need for you to be punished for these offences against the obvious need for treatment leading to rehabilitation.  It is essential that you are no longer a danger to others and yourself.

11.As I have said, both doctors recommend three months.  It seems like a short period of time, and I know there are mechanisms in place for doctors to extend that period if they are of the view that you are not yet fit to be released.  However, what does concern me is that the two doctors in February considered a three-to-four-month period sufficient.  Four months later, that clearly is not the case.  According to the up-to-date reports, your mental health is still an issue and, according to the doctors, you are still actively psychotic.  One of those psychiatrists also wrote the report in February.  This same Dr Lam is of the view that you have some improvement. You are less emotional but you still have some delusions against the victim. 

12.What does worry me is that you have had treatment for four months already, and a three-to-four-month treatment period was recommended in February.  You are clearly not ready yet to be released.  I am concerned that the three-month period now recommended will again be insufficient.  However I am not a medical expert.  I have looked at some authorities because I am not entirely convinced that the doctors themselves are confident you can be expected to be fit for release within three months.  That is not obvious and clear from their reports.

13.I have looked at three authorities: HKSAR v Cheung Sui Bun CACC 398 of 2000, the second being HKSAR v Lee Wong Chiu CACC 282 of 2008 (para 5 and 6) and, lastly, HKSAR v Fan Wai Kong CACC 475 of 2004.  What they have in common is that they deal with the issue whether the court should impose a fixed period for a hospital order.  All are of the view that in those cases, it was not necessary or, rather, it was not wrong that the sentencing judge did not specify a period of time. 

14.After all, defendant, your mental health condition will be constantly under review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal regulated by the Mental Health Ordinance.  Your case will be reviewed regularly, and the mechanisms in place can ensure that you are not detained any longer than necessary.  You, through counsel accept this.

15.After considering all that has been said this morning, the facts of the case, mitigation put forward, your plea and the four sets of psychiatric reports I have seen, I will impose a hospital order for both charges pursuant to section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136.  Both orders will be served concurrently, and you will serve this order in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.

16.I make no order as to the length of the hospital orders.  Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Yes.