區域法院（刑事）HH Judge A. J. Woodcock25/8/2021[2021] HKDC 1085
DCCC19/2021
A DCCC 19/2021 A
[2021] HKDC 1085
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 19 OF 2021
C C
-----------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Cho King-chun
F F
------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge A. J. Woodcock
Date: 26 August 2021 at 10.04 am
H Present: Mr Christopher Wong, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR H
Mr Chan Siu-ming, instructed by Yung Yu Yuen,
I
assigned by DLA, for the defendant I
Offence: (1) Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人)
(2) & (3) Wounding (傷人)
J (4) Possession of offensive weapons (管有攻擊性武器) J
K --------------------- K
Reasons for Sentence
L L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, wounding with
intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the
N N
Persons Ordinance, Cap 212. He also pleaded guilty to Charge 2,
O wounding, contrary to section 19 of the same Ordinance, and O
Charge 4, possession of offensive weapons contrary to section 17
P of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. Charge 3, another P
wounding offence, was kept on the court file not to be dealt
Q Q
with unless there is leave from this court or the Court of
Appeal.
R R
S
2. The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts. At the S
time of these offences, he was a contract clerk of the
T Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. In late July T
2020, his biannual contract was not renewed, which meant his
U last day of work fell on 31 August 2020. U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 1 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
3. On the last day of work, he attacked and injured
B several colleagues. At about 2 pm that day, a Mr Choy who sat at B
his desk when he felt a hard object hit him from behind on the
C head. He turned to see the defendant holding a chopper with his C
right hand just before he struck him again above the left
D eyebrow. Mr Choy is the victim of Charge 1 and these are the D
particulars of that charge.
E E
4. When this happened, another colleague, a Ms Poon,
F F
rushed over to pull Mr Choy away from the defendant. She was
slashed by the chopper wielded by the defendant across the right
G G
arm. She heard him shouting, “Chop you to death,” at Mr Choy
H whilst hitting him with the chopper. Ms Poon is the victim of H
Charge 2 and these are the particulars of that charge.
I I
5. Other colleagues heard and saw the incident before
J rushing over to try and snatch the chopper from the defendant. J
He was later subdued on the ground and the police were informed.
K Later during a search, two pairs of scissors were found in his K
trouser pocket. These were the offensive weapons of Charge 4.
L L
6. The defendant was arrested and cautioned after the
M M
police arrived. And he said that the man he chopped had teased
N him, cost him his job, so he chopped him. The woman intervened, N
so he chopped her as well. The scissors found in his trousers
O pocket were for self-defence in case anyone snatched his chopper O
away from him.
P P
7. On the following day, two further interviews were
Q Q
conducted under caution, two video-recorded interviews, in the
presence of a social worker deemed an appropriate adult. The
R R
defendant explained in full how he had worked in the same office
S for six years but was suddenly told his contract would not be S
renewed. He blamed his direct superior for allocating all his
T work to others, making him redundant. T
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 2 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A 8. He had actually planned to chop his immediate A
supervisor or superior, but on that last day he was absent from
B the office, so he chopped Mr Choy instead. Mr Choy had in the B
past teased him. He admitted all the offences charged in those
C C
interviews.
D 9. Mr Choy suffered from lacerations over his left D
eyebrow, right face, left chest wall, right forearm, left
E E
forearm and 3 fingers. He was treated and discharged on the same
day with 7 days sick leave. I have a set of photographs
F F
depicting injuries. Photographs 1 to 32 were of Mr Choy and
G photographs 33 and 34 were of Ms Poon. She suffered minor G
injuries but blood was drawn.
H H
Mitigation
I I
10. The defendant is a single, 39-year-old man who has a
clear record. He was educated and completed Form 5. He has been
J J
employed as a clerk for many years. He lives with his 80-year-
K old father. In 2017, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and K
regularly treated at a psychiatric clinic.
L L
11. After his arrest and when he appeared before a
M M
magistrate, 2 psychiatric reports were obtained to determine if
he was fit to plead.
N N
O 12. I have had sight of those 2 reports dated 10 and 14 O
September 2020. Both psychiatrists diagnosed the defendant as
P suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, which was in relapse at P
that time. The recommendation was for him to receive further
Q Q
compulsory psychiatric treatment and a hospital order for a
period of 6 to 9 months imposed under section 45 of the Mental
R R
Health Ordinance was suggested.
S S
13. After the defendant’s plea and conviction, I found it
T prudent to adjourn and call for 2 more psychiatric reports since T
the last ones were nearly a year old. I have also taken into
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 3 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A account that the defendant has been remanded in custody for A
almost one year now.
B B
14. I have now heard full mitigation from Mr Chan and he
C has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. He C
reiterated that these offences were committed whilst he was
D suffering a relapse of his mental illness. I was urged to take D
into account that although the facts and charges are very
E E
serious, the photographs show that the injuries suffered were in
no way life-threatening or debilitating.
F F
15. These 2 recent reports were written by 2 different
G G
psychiatrists who confirmed the schizophrenia diagnosis and
H relapse at the material time. They are both of the opinion that H
although the defendant has been admitted to Siu Lam Psychiatric
I Centre since the day of his arrest and treated, his mental state I
had only partially improved.
J J
16. Both experts recommend further inpatient treatment to
K titrate his medications so as to optimise his mental state. Both K
see that as necessary to stabilise his mental condition. Both
L L
also suggest and recommend a hospital order for a period of 4
months and the defendant to continue to reside at Siu Lam
M M
Psychiatric Centre. Both state that after the expiry of this
N hospital order, he could be certified to a psychiatric hospital N
for further rehabilitation and arrangement of a supervised
O residential placement could be made, if felt medically O
necessary.
P P
17. On the face of it, these charges are very serious. But
Q Q
luckily, the injuries inflicted by the defendant were not so
R serious that the victims have not fully recovered. Clearly the R
defendant was suffering from a relapse of his schizophrenia at
S the material time. S
T 18. I take into account he has been in custody on remand T
and receiving treatment for a year. Two psychiatrists still
U recommend further treatment. Reassuringly, there is a provision U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 4 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A for confined supervision and further rehabilitation after his A
discharge from a hospital order, if imposed.
B B
19. I have taken into account all the facts of the case,
C C
the injuries suffered, mitigation, his previous clear record and
his psychiatric diagnosis. This is clearly a case where the
D D
defendant needs treatment for his rehabilitation. Treatment has
E been recommended and offered. Therefore, I find it appropriate E
in this case to consider a hospital order.
F F
20. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to a hospital
G order for a period of 4 months for Charges 1, 2 and 4, to be G
served concurrently.
H H
I I
J A. J. Woodcock J
District Judge
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 5 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A DCCC 19/2021 A
[2021] HKDC 1085
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 19 OF 2021
C C
-----------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Cho King-chun
F F
------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge A. J. Woodcock
Date: 26 August 2021 at 10.04 am
H Present: Mr Christopher Wong, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR H
Mr Chan Siu-ming, instructed by Yung Yu Yuen,
I
assigned by DLA, for the defendant I
Offence: (1) Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人)
(2) & (3) Wounding (傷人)
J (4) Possession of offensive weapons (管有攻擊性武器) J
K --------------------- K
Reasons for Sentence
L L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, wounding with
intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the
N N
Persons Ordinance, Cap 212. He also pleaded guilty to Charge 2,
O wounding, contrary to section 19 of the same Ordinance, and O
Charge 4, possession of offensive weapons contrary to section 17
P of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. Charge 3, another P
wounding offence, was kept on the court file not to be dealt
Q Q
with unless there is leave from this court or the Court of
Appeal.
R R
S
2. The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts. At the S
time of these offences, he was a contract clerk of the
T Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. In late July T
2020, his biannual contract was not renewed, which meant his
U last day of work fell on 31 August 2020. U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 1 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
3. On the last day of work, he attacked and injured
B several colleagues. At about 2 pm that day, a Mr Choy who sat at B
his desk when he felt a hard object hit him from behind on the
C head. He turned to see the defendant holding a chopper with his C
right hand just before he struck him again above the left
D eyebrow. Mr Choy is the victim of Charge 1 and these are the D
particulars of that charge.
E E
4. When this happened, another colleague, a Ms Poon,
F F
rushed over to pull Mr Choy away from the defendant. She was
slashed by the chopper wielded by the defendant across the right
G G
arm. She heard him shouting, “Chop you to death,” at Mr Choy
H whilst hitting him with the chopper. Ms Poon is the victim of H
Charge 2 and these are the particulars of that charge.
I I
5. Other colleagues heard and saw the incident before
J rushing over to try and snatch the chopper from the defendant. J
He was later subdued on the ground and the police were informed.
K Later during a search, two pairs of scissors were found in his K
trouser pocket. These were the offensive weapons of Charge 4.
L L
6. The defendant was arrested and cautioned after the
M M
police arrived. And he said that the man he chopped had teased
N him, cost him his job, so he chopped him. The woman intervened, N
so he chopped her as well. The scissors found in his trousers
O pocket were for self-defence in case anyone snatched his chopper O
away from him.
P P
7. On the following day, two further interviews were
Q Q
conducted under caution, two video-recorded interviews, in the
presence of a social worker deemed an appropriate adult. The
R R
defendant explained in full how he had worked in the same office
S for six years but was suddenly told his contract would not be S
renewed. He blamed his direct superior for allocating all his
T work to others, making him redundant. T
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 2 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A 8. He had actually planned to chop his immediate A
supervisor or superior, but on that last day he was absent from
B the office, so he chopped Mr Choy instead. Mr Choy had in the B
past teased him. He admitted all the offences charged in those
C C
interviews.
D 9. Mr Choy suffered from lacerations over his left D
eyebrow, right face, left chest wall, right forearm, left
E E
forearm and 3 fingers. He was treated and discharged on the same
day with 7 days sick leave. I have a set of photographs
F F
depicting injuries. Photographs 1 to 32 were of Mr Choy and
G photographs 33 and 34 were of Ms Poon. She suffered minor G
injuries but blood was drawn.
H H
Mitigation
I I
10. The defendant is a single, 39-year-old man who has a
clear record. He was educated and completed Form 5. He has been
J J
employed as a clerk for many years. He lives with his 80-year-
K old father. In 2017, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and K
regularly treated at a psychiatric clinic.
L L
11. After his arrest and when he appeared before a
M M
magistrate, 2 psychiatric reports were obtained to determine if
he was fit to plead.
N N
O 12. I have had sight of those 2 reports dated 10 and 14 O
September 2020. Both psychiatrists diagnosed the defendant as
P suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, which was in relapse at P
that time. The recommendation was for him to receive further
Q Q
compulsory psychiatric treatment and a hospital order for a
period of 6 to 9 months imposed under section 45 of the Mental
R R
Health Ordinance was suggested.
S S
13. After the defendant’s plea and conviction, I found it
T prudent to adjourn and call for 2 more psychiatric reports since T
the last ones were nearly a year old. I have also taken into
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 3 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A account that the defendant has been remanded in custody for A
almost one year now.
B B
14. I have now heard full mitigation from Mr Chan and he
C has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. He C
reiterated that these offences were committed whilst he was
D suffering a relapse of his mental illness. I was urged to take D
into account that although the facts and charges are very
E E
serious, the photographs show that the injuries suffered were in
no way life-threatening or debilitating.
F F
15. These 2 recent reports were written by 2 different
G G
psychiatrists who confirmed the schizophrenia diagnosis and
H relapse at the material time. They are both of the opinion that H
although the defendant has been admitted to Siu Lam Psychiatric
I Centre since the day of his arrest and treated, his mental state I
had only partially improved.
J J
16. Both experts recommend further inpatient treatment to
K titrate his medications so as to optimise his mental state. Both K
see that as necessary to stabilise his mental condition. Both
L L
also suggest and recommend a hospital order for a period of 4
months and the defendant to continue to reside at Siu Lam
M M
Psychiatric Centre. Both state that after the expiry of this
N hospital order, he could be certified to a psychiatric hospital N
for further rehabilitation and arrangement of a supervised
O residential placement could be made, if felt medically O
necessary.
P P
17. On the face of it, these charges are very serious. But
Q Q
luckily, the injuries inflicted by the defendant were not so
R serious that the victims have not fully recovered. Clearly the R
defendant was suffering from a relapse of his schizophrenia at
S the material time. S
T 18. I take into account he has been in custody on remand T
and receiving treatment for a year. Two psychiatrists still
U recommend further treatment. Reassuringly, there is a provision U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 4 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A for confined supervision and further rehabilitation after his A
discharge from a hospital order, if imposed.
B B
19. I have taken into account all the facts of the case,
C C
the injuries suffered, mitigation, his previous clear record and
his psychiatric diagnosis. This is clearly a case where the
D D
defendant needs treatment for his rehabilitation. Treatment has
E been recommended and offered. Therefore, I find it appropriate E
in this case to consider a hospital order.
F F
20. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to a hospital
G order for a period of 4 months for Charges 1, 2 and 4, to be G
served concurrently.
H H
I I
J A. J. Woodcock J
District Judge
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/26.8.2021/MA 5 DCCC 19/2021(1)/Sentence
V V