HKSAR v. SIU KAM YUNG (蕭金容) (D1) CACC512/2006

S’s words:-
What a pity. A case that has failed to convince the Court to regard the circumstances of the applicant and her late daughter amounted to such an exceptional humanitarian ground so as to warrant a reduction in the applicant’s sentence. If I were the one who imposed sentence, would I form a different view?

---

Date of Judgment : 29 June 2007

The 65-year old applicant was, on 24 October 2006, convicted on her own plea in the District Court by Deputy Judge Casewell of a single offence of conspiracy to steal (Charge 1) and seven theft offences (Charges 3–6, 13–15).

She was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment in respect of each of the 1st charged offence of conspiracy and the 3rd charged offence of theft, and to 6 months’ imprisonment for each of the remaining theft offences contained in Charges 4–6 and 13–15.

The judge ordered that the sentences be served partly concurrently so as to arrive at a total sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment.

The applicant had five children. Her youngest daughter sadly died from a long-standing illness on 1 December 2006, some 39 days after the applicant commenced serving her present sentences. She was 40 years old. Immediately following the death of her daughter, the applicant, who had previously suffered from bouts of depression, experienced those symptoms again and was initially treated at the Tuen Mun Mental Health Centre on 2 December 2006 where she was diagnosed as suffering a moderate episode of Recurrent Depressive Disorder.

That diagnosis was confirmed upon subsequent examinations of the applicant at Castle Peak Hospital, though the seriousness of this current episode of her illness was subsequently described as “mild to severe”. The prognosis for the applicant’s illness was stated in a report of Dr Robyn Mei Yee Ho of Castle Peak Hospital dated 11 March 2007 as being “fair”. The applicant requires continual psychiatric treatment at the present time.

Whilst [the Court had] every sympathy for the applicant, [the Court noted] that her daughter’s illness, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, predated the present offence and she had in fact been receiving treatment for it since 1995. Her condition had deteriorated by September 2002 to the extent that she was receiving intensive care at Queen Elizabeth Hospital

The present offences were committed by the applicant between May 2003 and May 2006. They were committed, it is fair to say, whilst the applicant was well aware of the state of her daughter’s illness.

[The Court did] not think in those circumstances the death of the applicant’s daughter amounts to such an exceptional humanitarian ground so as to warrant a reduction in the applicant’s sentence. Nor [did the Court] think that the current episode of the applicant’s depressive disorder brought on by the death of her daughter amounts to such a ground. That illness is currently being treated whilst the applicant is in custody and is apparently being managed with some success. It has not been thought necessary to transfer her to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.

... the applications were dismissed.