📢 Petition Update: The High Court’s Written Judgment Reveals an Important Issue 高庭书面判词揭示一个非常重要的问题

我们已经详细阅读这份 77页高庭书面判词（Grounds of Judgment）。

其中，第 [57]–[60] 段尤其值得所有关心本案的人注意。

法官明确指出：

控方确实有交叉盘问法医精神科专家。

但是，法官认为控方的盘问没有真正检验专家核心意见的基础，也没有提出足以动摇该意见的相反专业观点。

更重要的是，第 [58] 段指出，控方早在 2026年1月就已经取得精神科报告，也有充分机会取得及提出自己的精神科反驳证据。

但控方没有传召任何反驳精神科专家。
到了第 [59] 段，法官进一步明确表示：

缺乏反驳证据，并不是因为控方没有机会。
这是控方在处理案件时作出的决定，因此这一决定所产生的证据后果，必须由控方承担。
随后，第 [60] 段总结，法官认为精神科报告最终没有被控方有效挑战。

这并不是说控方在整个案件中“什么都没有做”。控方有提出被告的计划性、锁定目标、隐藏刀具及其他现实行为作为反驳。

问题是：当 Section 84 精神失常抗辩的核心变成精神医学与法律认知能力之间的争议时，法官认为控方没有在专业证据层面把这场争议打到底。

这也是为什么我们认为，第 [57]–[60] 段值得被认真审视。

有精神疾病，不等于自动没有刑事责任。
真正关键的是：

案发时，被告是否因为精神疾病，而失去理解自己行为是错误或违法的能力？

对于这样一个决定刑事责任的重大问题，当控方已有充分时间取得报告时，为什么最终没有传召自己的精神科专家，对这一核心结论进行专业反驳？

我们希望有关方面认真审视完整判词及案件记录。

We have carefully reviewed the 77-page Grounds of Judgment issued by the High Court.

Paragraphs [57]–[60] deserve particular attention.

The Judge expressly noted that the prosecution did cross-examine the forensic psychiatrist.

However, the Court found that the cross-examination did not sufficiently test the basis of the expert’s central opinion or put forward a contrary professional proposition capable of displacing it.

More importantly, paragraph [58] states that the prosecution had been provided with the Psychiatric Report since January 2026 and had sufficient opportunity to obtain and adduce psychiatric evidence in rebuttal.

No rebuttal psychiatric expert was called.
In paragraph [59], the Judge then made an important finding:

The absence of rebuttal evidence could not be attributed to any lack of opportunity on the prosecution’s part. It was a decision made in the conduct of its case, and the evidential consequences of that decision had to be borne by the prosecution.
Paragraph [60] then records the Court’s conclusion that the Psychiatric Report had not been effectively challenged by the prosecution.

This does not mean that the prosecution did nothing throughout the trial. The prosecution raised arguments concerning planning, targeting, concealment of the knives and other conduct.

The issue is narrower and more important:

Once the Section 84 defence turned on the relationship between psychiatric illness and the accused’s legal cognitive capacity, the Court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently challenged the core psychiatric opinion at the expert-evidence level.

That is why paragraphs [57]–[60] deserve careful public scrutiny.

Mental illness does not automatically remove criminal responsibility.
The crucial question is:

At the time of the act, did the accused’s mental condition render him incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law?

Where that question determines criminal responsibility, and where the prosecution had months to consider the Psychiatric Report, an important question remains:

Why was no psychiatric expert called to rebut the central psychiatric conclusion?
We hope the relevant authorities will carefully review the complete written judgment and the full trial record.