HKSAR v. Kwan Wun Wai

Case No.HCCC 492/2013
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 Aug 2014
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC 492/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 492 OF 2013

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  KWAN Wun-wai  

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

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Stuart-Moore
Date: 14 August 2014 at 10.01 am
Present: Ms Grace Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Duncan Percy, instructed by Thomas Li & Yu, for the defendant
Offence:  Murder (謀殺)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The plea of guilty to manslaughter has very properly been accepted by the prosecution. The defendant, who is now 87 years old, suffered from a relapse of the paranoid schizophrenia which was marked by paranoid delusions and probable auditory hallucinations.

It is the sad fact that his past psychiatric record reveals that he has suffered from schizophrenia since the year 1960. On 18 May last year, 2013, the defendant used a four-pronged walking aid to attack the man who was asleep in the cubicle next to his own.

Both men lived at the same old peoples’ home, and this was in the middle of the night. Now, the attack left the deceased with extensive facial injuries and numerous fractures to his head and skull and from the autopsy report, it appears that the deceased was hit five or six times on the head with this implement.

The defendant was labouring under the total misapprehension that the deceased had conspired to do him some harm and also that the deceased had been stealing his belongings. And it is only right to say that there was no substance at all to this belief on the defendants behalf.

The defendant has been under the care of Dr Chow Kit-wun at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. Dr Chow’s opinion is that in view of the seriousness of this offence and the high risk of violence under the influence of his abnormal beliefs and psychotic symptoms, the defendant needs hospital treatment in a high security setting.

Now, the defendant has, to some extent, responded to the medicine he is being given, but he remains easily agitated. Dr Chow’s opinion that there should be a committal under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for an unspecified period, is supported by the views of Dr Oliver Chan, who has expressed a similar opinion. The views of these two psychiatrists are also reflected in a third report, with which I have been provided by the defence, and that is the report of Dr John Wong Yee-him which is dated 29 April this year.

Now, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied under the terms of section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, on the written evidence of Dr Chow 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 and I am informed that there is a bed available for him.

Accordingly, it is plainly right to make a hospital order, as recommended by these two psychiatrists, and that this should 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.