Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention under mental health ordinance

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2018

陳碩謙對醫院管理局

Citation

[2018] HKCA 190
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP61/2017

The Court refused out‑of‑time permission because the applicant merely re‑litigated matters already finally decided without any substantive new evidence or arguable point, such re‑litigation is abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, the judge below applied the correct legal standard and no reasonable prospect of success existed; costs were awarded and a restriction under Order 59 r2A(8) was imposed.
2 Apr 2001

Re Patient L

Citation

Re Patient L
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP947/2001

The judge refused to countersign Form 7 because section 36 cannot be invoked to detain a person whose liability to be detained arose under section 31/32 and has expired; after the single extension under section 32 the patient was no longer liable to be detained unless he became voluntary, so countersigning would be legally improper and an abuse of process.
2 Apr 2001

Re Patient L

Citation

Re Patient L
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP740/2001

Because section 32(4) forbids continued detention after the maximum period under sections 31 and 32 unless the person is a voluntary patient, and because section 36 requires the patient to be liable to detention under some other provision, a District Judge must refuse to countersign a Form 7 where there is no evidence the patient is liable to be detained under any provision other than s36; accordingly the Form 7s were unlawful to countersign and marked abuse of process.
21 Jul 1994

LUNG FAN-WA v. R.

Citation

LUNG FAN-WA v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC23/1994

Where psychiatrists cannot express with confidence the duration of treatment required, the Court will not attach a fixed term to a hospital order; the trial judge did not err in making an order without limit and therefore leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
1 Jul 1992

THE QUEEN v. FONG KAI PAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FONG KAI PAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC101/1992

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge had the benefit of three medical reports and oral evidence, counsel could not identify any arguable grounds, and the applicant's lack of consent was legally immaterial to detention under s.45; therefore there was no basis to interfere with the order.

Hong Kong Case Law

陳碩謙 對 醫院管理局

Re Patient L

Re Patient L

LUNG FAN-WA v. R.

THE QUEEN v. FONG KAI PAN

陳碩謙對醫院管理局