HKSAR v. YUNG ZHI CHIU

DCCC 842/2025

[2026] HKDC 1143

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 842 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Arson[1]". He set fire to a private car parked on the street.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 2:15 a.m. on 4 November 2024, a private car KK1870 ("the Car"), which was parked near Lamppost No.41233, Lin Shing Road, Chai Wan, was on fire.  Firemen arrived at 2:28 a.m. and put out the fire.  The Car was damaged.

3.  Firemen later found a white plastic container, which contained 3.3 litres of petrol, near the Car.  The fire was considered suspicious.

4.  The police examined CCTV footage obtained from different locations and made enquiries with the related taxi drivers.  The story of who started the fire and how it happened was reconstructed.

5.  About 6:00 p.m. on 3 November 2024, the defendant checked into North Point Prince Motel ("the Motel") situated at 2^nd Floor, Mido Apartments, King's Road, North Point.  About 1:02 a.m. on 4 November 2024, the defendant took a taxi (XY4016) from the Motel to Wan Tsui Estate Carpark at Lin Shing Road.  He alighted from the taxi at 1:13 a.m. and wandered in the vicinity of Lin Shing Road.

6.  About 1:43 a.m. on the same day, the defendant boarded a taxi (GR8289) at Wan Tsui Estate requesting to go to a petrol station.  During the journey, he revealed that he wanted to purchase some petrol.  The taxi driver suggested taking the defendant to a car repair shop, to which he agreed.  The taxi driver drove the defendant to a car repair shop in Chai Wan.  After speaking to the staff of the repair shop, the defendant decided to go to a petrol station.  The taxi driver then drove him to an Esso station at Fung Yip Street, Chai Wan ("the Esso Station").

7.  Staff of the Esso Station confirmed that they sold a white plastic container which contained $100 worth of petrol and a pair of gloves to the defendant at 2:00 a.m. on 4 November 2024.  They also confirmed that the white plastic container sold to the defendant was identical to the one found near the Car after the fire.

8.  About 2:08 a.m. on the same day, the defendant boarded a taxi (EC463) at the Esso Station carrying with him the white plastic container.  He alighted at Wan Tsui Estate Carpark at Lin Shing Road.

9.  CCTV footage captured the defendant alighting from the taxi at 2:14 a.m. and walking up Lin Shing Road towards the location where the Car was parked.  About 4 minutes later, the defendant was walking downhill on Lin Shing Road towards Wan Tsui Road.  About 2:20 in the same morning, he boarded a taxi (TY5282) and alighted at Kam Hong Street in North Point.

10.  The defendant was arrested on 30 November 2024.  In his video recorded interview, he admitted that he rented a room in the Motel.  He also revealed his tattoo on his left arm, which matched the one he was seen wearing in the Motel's CCTV footage.

Mitigation & Sentence

11. The defendant is 38 and has 12 conviction records involving 23 offences (of which 1 was "Criminal damage" dated 2010). He has committed a wide variety of criminal offences related to violence, triad, dishonesty and dangerous drugs. Defence counsel Ms. Hon informed me that the defendant is single and resides alone in Mongkok. He committed the present offence 2 days after he was released from prison[2].

12. In mitigation, Ms. Hon submitted that according to photographs taken by the police after the fire, the Car was parked at a location away from people. No other cars were parked nearby either[3]. When I asked why the defendant set fire to the Car, Ms. Hon's reply was "the defendant was unwilling to disclose".

13. In view of the nature of the offence and the defendant's unknown motive, I decided to call for a Clinical Psychologist's Report. The report revealed that the defendant has a brief psychiatric history in 2020 due to adjustment disorder and substance abuse. When serving his sentence in 2024, he reported auditory hallucinations and received psychiatric treatment. He is currently on anti-psychotic medication.

14. The defendant disclosed to the clinical psychologist that he set fire to the Car because he had prior conflicts with its owner ("the Owner") and wanted to take revenge on him. The clinical psychologist opines that the defendant is a man with Anti-social Personality Disorder. The risk of re-offending is very high. He needs psychological treatment focusing on the enhancement of his relapse prevention skills and problem-solving skills, as well as modification of his criminal attitudes.

15. 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[4]."

16. Ms. Hon supplemented this afternoon that during the adjournment, the defendant had explained to her why he wanted to take revenge on the Owner. He claimed that he used to be good friends with the Owner and had even lent the Owner money. When the defendant was released from prison, he tried to borrow money from the Owner, who refused and denied any debt owed to the defendant. The defendant thus felt disappointed and betrayed.

17. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tse Chun Kit [2021] HKCA 281[5] 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[6] parked in a multi-storey carpark which resulted in 25 more cars being burnt[7] should be 6 years' imprisonment. And for minor arson conduct which did not lead to personal injuries, death or serious economic loss, a starting point of 2 to 3 years' imprisonment would be sufficient[8]. It is most fortunate that no person was injured and no other vehicles were damaged in the present case; however, the interior of the Car was completely destroyed[9]. It is apparent that the Car is considered a "total loss". Bearing in mind the clinical psychologist's comments and opinions, I consider a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 24 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment.

18. I also invite the Commissioner of Correctional Services to arrange for the defendant to receive the necessary treatment as recommended by the clinical psychologist.