HKSAR v. SEEBOONMATR TEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.680
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 17th October 1997, this Applicant was convicted of three charges of arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, contrary to s.60(2) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200. This followed a trial in the District Court before Deputy Judge Duggan. On 7th November 1997, the Applicant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently on all charges. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against these convictions and the sentence she received.

2. The offences all related to 7th June 1997, and were committed within a space of about three hours at Flat 2938, Hing Cheong House on the Tai Hing Estate in Tuen Mun. The damaged premises were occupied by a husband and wife PW8 and PW6 respectively.

3. Clearly there was a background to these offences and it can be put very briefly. In 1995, PW8 left his wife in order to live with the Applicant. This situation continued for about a year.

4. In the early hours of 7th June, the Applicant paged PW8 to ask him to meet her. PW8's refusal to meet her led to three separate visits by the Applicant to the flat where all the offences were committed by thrusting burning paper through the letter-box of the front door. The first offence was noticed by a neighbour who saw a woman in the corridor.

5. The prosecution's case relied of course not only on this evidence but also on the admissions made by the Applicant in her interview with police and, on the last two occasions, she had been seen by PW8 outside the flat.

6. The defence case could hardly have contrasted more starkly with this account. The Applicant, who is a 40-year-old Thai lady of previous good character, gave evidence that she did not go to the attacked premises at all on the relevant night. She said that she had called PW8 and, as a result, that he had come to collect her from a karaoke establishment in Yuen Long and had taken her home to Yau Ma Tei between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m.

7. The grounds of appeal are short. They read:

"I did not commit any offences. I should not have been convicted. Besides the sentence is too heavy."

8. The Applicant has produced three letters which appeared to have been written to her by PW8. These are written with considerable compassion and it would appear that he has forgiven the Applicant for these offences. They can, however, have little bearing upon this application.

9. It may be that the clue to the Applicant's stubborn dispute with the allegations against her is revealed by evidence given on the special issue to decide the admissibility of the answers in an interview which the judge ultimately ruled to have been made voluntarily. It emerged that the Applicant had, some 12 hours or so before these events, been admitted with a history of attempted suicide, having ingested Panadol and cleaning powder.

10. Whatever the case may be, there is nothing in the grounds advanced by the Applicant as to her conviction. The judge gave most careful consideration to all of the evidence and in no way at all can his Reasons for Verdict be faulted.

11. The application as it relates to conviction must be dismissed.

12. As to sentence, this was a remarkably merciful one. The judge took into account the emotionally unstable state of the Applicant at the time of these offences, and he had the assistance also of a very helpful psychiatric report. He reduced the starting point of two years that he took to one of 18 months to take into account previous good character.

13. There is no merit at all in this application for leave to appeal against sentence and it must also be dismissed. For the reason that it was wholly unmeritorious, we shall order that one month of the period awaiting this hearing shall not count towards the sentence.