HKSAR v. Mendoza Evangelina Rueme

DCCC 16/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Verdict

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

1.In the early hours on 29 October 2013 at his residence the victim, one Mr Fok Tsan-ying, was wounded by the defendant. Before the wounding took place, he was staying in a bedroom asleep. The defendant first entered the bedroom and tried to put a cushion on his face for a few minutes. He managed to struggle and free himself from the defendant’s action. When he was wondering what had happened, the defendant chopped him a few times with a chopper. Other family members were alerted. They helped him put up a struggle with the defendant and eventually subdued the defendant. Police arrived and arrested the defendant. The defendant remained silent under caution.

2.The victim was admitted to Queen Mary Hospital and found to have sustained multiple injuries over the scalp, forehead, left ear and occiput.  He also sustained injuries over the right forearm and right middle finger.  He received altogether 33 stitches.  He was discharged from the hospital on the same day. 

3.The defendant was interviewed under caution. She admitted that she had chopped the victim with a chopper but pleaded that she did not know what she was doing until after chopping. 

4.The circumstances of the attack gave rise to a series of a psychiatric reports obtained of the defendant.  Her mental condition was explored and there was a case of an unsound mind to be pursued. Psychiatric reports obtained for the purpose of ascertaining her fitness to plead and her state of mind at the time of the offence universally point to the finding that the defendant was suffering from an unsound mind at the time of the offence.  It is for the defence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was insane at the time of the offence based on the McNaghten Rules.

5.According to the McNaghten Rules, the defence has to establish that at the time of the committing of the act, the defendant was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act she was doing, or if she did know it, that she did not know she was doing what was wrong.  There is ample and consistent evidence from Dr Bonnie Siu and Dr Christina Lam to the effect that the defendant was suffering from a form of mental illness.  I am satisfied that the defence has made out a case of not guilty by insanity.