Daisy Cheung: Magistrates Must Improve Approach to Mental Disability in the Courtroom (HKFP)

"Magistrates must improve approach to mental disability in the courtroom"

Daisy Cheung

Hong Kong Free Press

June 22 2020

I have read with great disappointment and concern reports of two recent magistrate cases dealing with the topic of mental disability.

    The first involved a schoolteacher who was found guilty of assault on June 12 at the Fanling Magistrates’ Court. It was reported that the magistrate had questioned the mental state of the defendant on the basis that his testimony was full of lies, that he showed no remorse, and that his testimony about the police wanting to throw him off a bridge was so outlandish that she suspected he had both mental and personality disorder.

     She further commented that she did not think his mental state was such that he could continue to teach. The defendant was remanded to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre until June 26, where two psychiatric reports would be obtained.There are clearly many concerns with the magistrate’s cavalier usage of technical medical terminology (in an area in which she has no apparent expertise) and perhaps with her decision to remand the defendant to Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre on the basis of his testimony in court, but I would like to focus in particular on the unnecessarily stigmatising effect of the magistrate’s words.

    First of all, anyone with courtroom experience will know that lack of remorse and testimony that appears untruthful or difficult to understand can be shared by many defendants, and that by itself, these behaviours are not indicative of mental or personality disorder.

    What the magistrate is doing here is equating undesirable human behaviour with mental illness, which is incredibly stigmatising for individuals with mental disability, already one of the most vulnerable and stigmatised groups in society. ... Click here to read the full text. 

Chinese version: 

<<法庭必須改善對於精神障礙的態度與處理方法>>

Daisy Cheung 

眾新聞

June 25 2020

近日兩個涉及精神障礙的裁判法院案件報道令人非常失望。
     第一個案件涉及一名於2020年6月12日在粉嶺裁判法院被裁定襲警罪成的小學教師。據報導，裁判官斥被告大話連篇、無悔意、以為警察會扔佢落橋的證詞十分荒唐，以至於質疑被告的精神狀態及懷疑被告心智及人格有潛在障礙。
     裁判官進一步質疑被告的精神狀態是否足以使他繼續教書，並將案件押至6 月26 日判刑，以索取兩份精神科報告、心理及背景報告。期間被告還押小欖精神病治療中心。
     當然，裁判官對醫學術語的草率引用，以及她僅根據法庭上的證詞即將被告還押小欖精神病治療中心的決定，顯然是令人擔憂的。但於此，我希望特別關注裁判官措辭中的不必要的污名化作用。
     首先，任何有法庭經驗的人都會知道，許多被告均表現出無悔意或作出難以理解的證詞，僅這些行為本身並不能表示被告具有心智或人格障礙。
    裁判官將不良行為與精神疾病等同起來，這種做法嚴重污名化患有精神障礙的人士——況且他們已是社會上最弱勢和最被污名化的群體之一。 ... Click here to read the full text.