HKSAR v. CHAROENSING PRANOM

DCCC99/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 99 OF 2011

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant has been convicted of an offence of Arson contrary to sections 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.  The particulars of the offence allege an intent to damage property or reckless as to whether such property be damaged.  I have dealt with the facts of the case in the verdict which I delivered.  I do not propose to rehearse them in any detail.

3.  The property in question here was a premises, Room 1208 Hing Hong House in Shau Kei Wan of which the defendant, herself, was the tenant and the finding of the court was that she had set fire to a bed situated in the premises which caused damage by fire to the premises itself.

4.  The defendant, at the time was resident there, along with her son and two other gentlemen.  The defendant had made admissions to using a lighter to light a cigarette and using that to set fire to the curtain of the bed. 

5.  In terms of the fire itself no accelerant was found to have been used.

6.  The background to the offence showed that the defendant was subject to certain pressures and stresses caused by the first prosecution witness who kept a dog at the premises which had caused complaints by the Housing Authority and, also, general untidiness of the flat which had led also to complaints by the Housing Authority. 

7.  After conviction I was informed, during the defendant’s antecedents that she had treatment for psychiatric illness and I obtained both psychiatric and psychological reports on the defendant.  In terms of the defendant’s antecedents she has a previous conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assaulting police.  And she has been fined in respect of those matters previously.

8.  The defendant lives at the premises with her son. She is a lady who has come from Thailand, working as a farmer in Thailand until 1980 and then moving to Hong Kong where she married.  She no longer lives with her husband, who is in, according to the reports an old age home.  She has, in the past, received psychological treatment. 

9.  I obtained a background report on her which confirmed that she came from a farming family in Thailand, having come to Hong Kong in 1980 and married.  Her husband had been admitted to a residential care home about 8 years ago.  She had formed co-habitation with other men since then.   

10.  The conclusion of the background report is that the defendant was noted to have a drinking problem but had what was described as a denial attitude and had also received psychiatric attention for depression. The psychologist’s report went into these matters in more detail. It related that - the first conviction related to fighting with her eldest son and the second conviction related to assaulting a police officer, the defendant had received psychiatric services for more than 10 years at the Pamela Youde Hospital and had been diagnosed with chronic alcoholism and organic psychosis and she had had multiple admissions due to her drinking problems.  She has also had three attempts at suicide in the past.

11.  The psychologist’s report found that the defendant’s alcohol abuse can be traced back for more than 20 years.  She is described as a lonely woman who harbours a lot of frustration in her life and she had used alcohol to cope with her problems and negative emotions.  She had faced numerous financial stresses and she had used increasing alcohol use to cope with those stresses.  It is noted that previous offending has always been preceded by alcohol use.  The conclusion was that the defendant’s behaviour is related to her alcohol problem.  Other factors include ineffective stress coping towards negative emotions arising from her family and other intimate relationships as well as financial strain. 

12.  The psychologist considered that there was still a risk of her re-offending largely because of her continuing alcohol problem.  It said there was insufficient evidence to ascertain whether there was a problem with pyromania which is an impulsive disorder to start fires, potentially relieving stress, but he considered she had a tendency to commit violent acts after the use of alcohol and she had shown limited insight into that particular form of offending.  There is a recommendation in the psychologist’s report that she receive psychological treatment for mood management, enhancing her stress coping and increasing insight into her offending behaviour, as well as encouraging alcohol abstinence.  His prognoses, is however, he says, “guarded.”

13.  The psychiatric report showed that the defendant has alcohol dependence syndrome.  It describes “Currently abstinent but in a protected environment and she has little insight towards her alcohol abuse problem, a limited motivation to quit alcohol.  Inpatient psychiatric treatment is not necessary but she is recommended for outpatient psychiatric treatment.”

14.  The defendant has an unfortunate background. Her life is undoubtedly blighted by her dependence on alcohol and her inability to cope with the stresses of life that she finds.  Undoubtedly the living situation was stressful.  Nevertheless the defendant has committed a serious offence.  She has been charged and convicted on the basis that the setting of the fire was to damage property and she will be sentenced also on that basis. The evidence supported that charge and I convicted her upon that basis.

15.  Nevertheless it has been observed in cases involving arson that Hong Kong is a densely populated city.  This building was a multi-story residential building and the setting of fires in such units are likely to cause extremely grave consequences. Potential for heavy loss of life is possible as well as substantial economic loss.  The arson itself here arises simply out of domestic stresses.  There was limited damage to the property and a minor injury caused to the son and no form of accelerant was used in the fire.

16.  Taking all these factors into account and the defendant’s unfortunate background, a sentence of imprisonment will inevitably have to be imposed.  The starting point for sentences of imprisonment in cases involving conviction where there is arson on the basis of  damage to property can range between 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment depending on the seriousness of the particular offence, the nature of injuries which have been caused and the extent of the damage caused.

17.  Taking all the factors that I have set out into account, I consider that the appropriate sentence for this defendant on this charge is a sentence of 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment and that is the sentence I will impose.