|
CACC 156/2024 [2025] HKCA 93
On appeal from [2024] HKDC 1132
and [2024] HKDC 1265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 156 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 543 OF 2022)
_______________
| |
HKSAR |
Respondent |
| |
v |
|
| |
Chow Yan Tung Iris (鄒欣桐) |
Applicant |
_______________
| Before: |
Hon Zervos JA in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
21 January 2025 |
| Date of Judgment: |
21 January 2025 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
1. The applicant stood trial before Deputy District Judge Casewell (the Judge) on one charge of arson (Charge 1) and three charges of attempted arson (Charges 2 to 4). On 10 July 2024, the Judge found the defendant guilty of the four charges. On 24 July 2024, the Judge sentenced the applicant to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.
2. On 25 July 2024, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against her conviction and sentence. She has not advanced any grounds of appeal, despite being directed to do so.
The brief facts
3. On 3 November, 4 November and twice on 6 November 2018, the rubbish bin located in the lift lobby on the 4th floor of Hong Yam House, On Yam Estate, Kwai Chung, was set alight. Fortunately, the fire was put out before spreading, and no one was hurt or injured. The fire on 3 November damaged the rubbish bin and the replacement cost was HK$478 (Charge 1). The fires on 4 and 6 November did not damage the bin, and therefore, the arson was treated as an attempt (Charges 2 to 4).[1]
The prosecution case
4. The applicant lived on the 4th floor of the building where the fires took place. On 6 November, after the first two fires, a police officer (PW5) made enquiries with the applicant and obtained a witness statement from her. At that time, she was treated as an informant. However, a subsequent investigation led PW5 to suspect that the applicant was behind the fires. Another officer (PW6) attended the scene and arrested the applicant. Under caution, the applicant told the police that she had set fire to the bins, so as to make the building manager enhance security patrols on her floor, because debt collectors had previously harassed her. The applicant’s admission was put down in writing and signed by her. She gave further details of her offending conduct in a subsequent video recorded interview with the police.[2]
The defence case
5. The applicant challenged the voluntariness of her admissions and gave evidence on the special issue. She alleged that she did not make the admissions at the scene and was threatened and induced to make the admissions in the video recorded interview. She did not give evidence on the general issue, but asserted that no weight should be put on the admissions.[3]
The reasons for verdict
6. On the special issue, the Judge accepted the evidence of PW5 and PW6. He found that the applicant’s version was not credible, and rejected her testimony regarding the circumstances leading to and surrounding the making of the admissions.[4]
7. On the general issue, based on the admissions made by the applicant, the Judge was sure that the applicant had set fire to the rubbish bins on all four occasions and accordingly convicted the applicant.[5]
The reasons for sentence
8. In sentencing the applicant, the Judge noted that there were no sentencing tariffs, but cases of arson could attract a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment or more when the offence was committed in a multi-storey building. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the need for deterrence, he adopted a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1 and 18 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 2 to 4. He then discounted the starting point by 10 months for the applicant’s good character, her personal and family circumstances, and the delay in the processing of the case. After applying the totality principle, he ordered that the sentences for Charges 2 to 4 be served concurrently with each other, and that 1 month of the concurrent sentences be served consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1, making a total of 12 months’ imprisonment.[6]
Discussion
9. As for the applicant’s conviction, she made full admissions when confronted by the police that she set fire to the rubbish bins on four occasions. The Judge gave detailed reasons for his acceptance of her admissions and rejection of her allegations of police misconduct. The Judge’s reasons cannot be faulted, and there is no basis to suggest that the convictions were unsafe or unsatisfactory.[7]
10. As for the applicant’s sentence, it was stated in HKSAR v Yiu Siu Hong [8], that the offence of arson is an extremely serious one, particularly in Hong Kong, a city that is densely populated with a vast and compact array of multi-storey buildings. While there are no sentencing guidelines, it was emphasised that a deterrent sentence was called for in order to protect the public and property from serious acts of arson.
11. The Judge appeared to have accepted that the applicant had set fires in order to put pressure on the building management to enhance the security on her floor. However, this is no excuse or justification for her selfish and dangerous act of setting fire to the rubbish bins over successive days. The consequences of her conduct could have been extremely serious and it was very fortunate that the fires were put out in time without causing any serious damage or injury.[9] In the circumstances, there is no basis for the applicant to complain about the sentence she received, which may be considered lenient. For criminal conduct like arson, not only do you get punished for the harm that you have done, but for the potential harm as well.
Conclusion
12. The applicant did not provide any grounds of appeal, and none are apparent. There is no basis to interfere with her conviction or sentence. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal her conviction and sentence is refused.
13. The applicant is nevertheless informed that she has the right to renew her application for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal, but she is also informed that the Court of Appeal has the power to order the loss of any time which she has served in custody pending the appeal, if the Court were to come to the view that there was no justification for the renewal of the application. I would add that the imposition of a loss of time is extremely likely when an applicant has advanced no grounds of appeal and the leave application has been refused.
| |
(Kevin Zervos)
Justice of Appeal
|
Mr Marcus Lee, SPP, of Department of Justice, for the respondent
The applicant appeared in person
[1] Appeal Bundle (AB), 22, at [1][2]; AB, 19, at [4].
[2] AB, 22, at [3]; AB, 24, at [12]; AB, 24, at [14]; AB, 24, at [15]; AB, 32, at [51]; AB, 32, at [52]; AB, 24, at [15]; AB, 27, at [28]; AB, 32, at [53]-[54].
[3] AB, 22, at [4]; AB, 26, at [21]; AB, 26, at [25]; AB, 26, at [26]; AB, 30, at [43]; AB, 31, at [45].
[4] AB, 29, at [37]; AB, 29-30, at [38]-[41].
[5] AB, 32, at [53]; AB, 33, at [55]-[56].
[6] AB, 38, at [13]; AB, 38-39, at [15]-[16]; AB, 39, at [18]; AB, 40-41, at [19]-[21]; AB, 41, at [22].
[7] AB, 28, at [33].
[8] HKSAR v Yiu Siu Hong [2020] HKCA 1087, at [50] and [51].
[9] AB, 35, at [2]; AB, 38, at [15].
|