HKSAR v. TANG PAK LUN, ANDY

DCCC 525/2025

[2026] HKDC 881

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 525 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Arson[1]". He set fire at an on-street motorcycle parking area, destroying 12 motorcycles and damaging 19 motorcycles and 1 private car.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 4:42 a.m. on 29 December 2024, a fire at the motorcycle parking area situated at No.79 Yau Hong Street, Kwun Tong ("the Location") was reported.  The fire was put out at 5:33 a.m. on the same day.

3.  As a result of the fire, 12 motorcycles were destroyed; 19 motorcycles (including the defendant's) and 1 private car ("the Tesla") were damaged; and the exterior wall of Yung Fung Shee Memorial Centre was seriously blackened. The total estimated loss of the destroyed/damaged vehicles was $920,000.

4.  Dashcam footage of the Tesla captured a taxi (XB1750; "the Taxi) stopping at the Location. A male (later confirmed to be the defendant) alighted from the driver's seat and walked around the Location.  A few minutes later, he crouched down and lit up the cover of a motorcycle with a lighter.  He returned to the Taxi and drove away.

5.  About 9:32 in the same morning, DPC 28746 arrested the defendant at his home in Laguna City.  Mr. Sin (PW4), the Taxi's day shift driver, confirmed that after finishing his shift at 5:00 p.m. on 28 December 2024, he passed the Taxi to the defendant, whose shift was from 5:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. the following day.  PW4 also handed the memory card of the Taxi's dashcam to the police.  Its footage captured the Taxi arriving at the Location at 4:24 a.m. on 29 December 2024 and the defendant alighting from the driver's seat.  He returned to the Taxi and drove off at 4:27 a.m. on the same day.

Mitigation & Sentence

6. The defendant is 48 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. So informed me that the defendant is married with no children. He was employed as a chauffer for about 8 years, but was laid off in early 2024 due to redundancy. The defendant then became a taxi driver earning about $15,000 per month. His wife has an office job. They are financially stable.

7. In mitigation, Mr. So explained that the defendant had parked his own motorcycle in a legal spot at the Location ("the Parking Spot"). When he was about to finish his shift on 29 December 2024, he stopped by the Location to check his motorcycle. He discovered that someone had moved his motorcycle out of the Parking Spot, and another motorcycle was parked in it, causing the defendant's motorcycle to have been ticketed for illegal parking. Mr. So stressed that it was not the first time. Prior to this case, the defendant had received over 10 parking tickets because his motorcycle was removed from a legal parking spot. He became angry and set fire to the motorcycle which was occupying the Parking Spot.

8. There are no sentencing guidelines for "Arson" offences. 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[2]."

9. If the defendant's complaint is true, I can understand his grievances. I wish I or the prosecution could offer him a lawful and feasible solution to his predicament, especially in relation to contesting his parking tickets; however, having his motorcycle removed from a legal parking spot is no justification for setting fire at the Location. It is most certainly not a proper way to express his fury and resentment.

10. The defendant has a clear record and has no known psychiatric issues. There is no evidence to suggest that he is a pyromaniac. I accept what he did was an isolated incident of uncontrolled anger. His failure to remove his own motorcycle from the Location before starting the fire indicates that he was not thinking clearly. It is most fortunate that no person was injured in the fire. I also assume that all the destroyed/damaged vehicles were properly insured. On the other hand, a fire in a parking area full of motorcycles could be deadly and catastrophic.

11. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tse Chun Kit [2021] HKCA 281[3] held that the proper starting point for a 22-year-old young man (with a clear record), who acted in concert with another young man, setting fire to a targeted vehicle[4] parked in a multi-storey carpark which resulted in 25 more cars being burnt[5] should be 6 years' imprisonment. I consider a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just in the present case. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment.