HKSAR v. TANG CHUN KIN

DCCC 379/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 379 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Arson"[1]. He lit up a piece of tissue in the staircase of a building situated at City University of Hong Kong.

Summary of Facts

2. About 7:45 pm on 23 March 2015, PC 10525 (PW1) was patrolling on the 2^nd Floor, Academic Building 1, City University of Hong Kong.  He heard some noise coming from the floor above, so he went to the 3^rd Floor.  PW1 saw the defendant holding a lighter burning a piece of tissue which was placed on the iron fence of the staircase[2]. A part of the iron fence (about the size of 1 cm x 2 cm) was burnt and turned black.

3. PW1 shouted at the defendant.  The defendant fled and PW1 gave chase.  PW1 intercepted him on the 4^th Floor.  A lighter and a piece of tissue were found in the defendant's right front trouser pocket.  Under caution, the defendant remained silent.

4. Remains of the burnt tissue were sent to the Government Laboratory for examination. Nothing significant was found.

Mitigation & Sentence

5. The defendant is 30 and single.  He resides with his parents and a younger sister in a private flat. The defendant has 2 conviction records.  His 2^nd conviction record involved 9 offences of "Arson", for which he was sentenced to a total of 48 months in June 2012 (DCCC 208/2012).  He was discharged from prison in August 2014.

6. Defence counsel Mr. SZETO informed me that after being released from prison, the defendant secured a job at a bakery, which he enjoyed doing.  Unfortunately, he was dismissed shortly before the present offence.  This time, the defendant did the right thing by seeking help from his social worker.  However, he was afraid to tell his parents about the dismissal, so he pretended to go to work every day.  He ended up idling at the City University campus and committed the present offence.

7. In mitigation, Mr. SZETO submitted that the defendant has been trying very hard to control himself. Comparing to his past "Arson" offences[3], the seriousness and magnitude of the present offence is at the very low end of the scale.  Burning tissue paper at the staircase would not create any significant risk of setting the building on fire.  Finally, Mr. SZETO submitted that the defendant needs rehabilitation rather than punishment.

8. At the suggestion of Mr. SZETO, I, with some reluctance, called for a Probation Officer's Report and a Community Service Order Suitability Report. Neither Probation Order nor Community Service Order is recommended. I have also called for 2 Psychiatrist's Reports. Both psychiatrists take the view that the defendant may be suffering from borderline personality disorder, but does not have any active psychiatric disorder. He does not require any medication or in-patient treatment.

9. This afternoon, Mr. SZETO stressed that the actual damage to property caused by the defendant is minimal, and no person's life was endangered. Furthermore, the defendant's parents are supportive and indicated that they will keep a closer eye on their son. A bundle of mitigation letters were placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

10. There are no sentencing guidelines for offences of "Arson". After reviewing a number of cases, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v KUNG Pak Fu [2008] 2 HKCLRT 240 held :-

"… arson is an extremely serious offence. That said, we do not consider it appropriate to lay down sentencing guidelines for this offence because its gravity differs from case to case, particularly in cases involving family disputes or souring of relationships. The court must impose a sentence which properly reflects the gravity of the particular case." [4]

11. I have carefully considered all mitigation advanced by Mr. SZETO. I accept that the risk of setting the building on fire by burning tissue paper at its staircase is low. The offence, however, took place on a weeknight when the evening classes were in session[5]. The defendant's act, if seen by any user of the building, would certainly cause them fear or panic. The defendant apparently is still struggling with pyromaniacalbehaviour. In my view, he still poses a threat to the general public.

12. Based on the reasons stated above, I consider 15 months' imprisonment to be the appropriate starting point. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 10 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. The sentence I impose on the defendant is 10 months' imprisonment.