HKSAR v. LAU FONG YU

CACC 601/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 751/2002)

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. On 14 November 2002, the applicant was convicted in the District Court on a guilty plea of one count of arson with intent, contrary to s. 60(2) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance. She was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

2. The facts were these. In the afternoon of 9 June 2002, after a heated quarrel with her husband in the morning, the applicant poured paint thinner into two bedrooms of her home and set fire to it. The family home whom she shared with her husband, son and daughter (from the previous marriage of her husband) was empty at the time. To her credit, the applicant went to Tseung Kwan O Police Station at 6:30 in the evening and told the police of the incident. She was arrested.

3. In passing sentence, Judge Longley took into account the applicant's guilty plea, the unhappy state of her marriage (described as "very unhappy and destructive") and her emotional distress. He also referred to her immediately reporting the incident to the police, the fact that she had no previous convictions and to the relationship with her husband. The judge regarded the usual starting point for such offences to be 6 years, but in view of the history of emotional distress suffered by the applicant during her marriage and those other factors I have referred to, adopted instead a starting point of 3 years, discounted to 2 years for the guilty plea. In arriving at his conclusion, the learned judge read various psychiatrists reports that were before him.

4. On 3 December 2002, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence. In the grounds of appeal, she said that on the day of the incident, she had been beaten up by her husband, this alleged assault resulting in her ear drum being perforated. She continues: "I only committed the offence of arson out of the trauma I suffered physically and mentally after being abused. The arson cost my career and my marriage which in itself was a very heavy punishment".

5. In my view, there is no doubt that the applicant shows remorse and is unlikely to repeat this or indeed any other offence. However, I cannot see how the learned judge erred in any way. He had taken into account all the relevant factors in favour of the applicant and if anything, was very lenient towards her. He had taken, if I may say so, an extremely sympathetic and understanding view of the applicant and her problems.

6. Arson remains one of the more serious crimes. The fact that no one was hurt in the present case was very fortunate. The applicant's home was a flat within a block of flats. The learned judge said this: "It is hard to imagine a more irresponsible and reckless act than to set fire to a flat in this way when it was only one flat in a block of over 30-storeys".

7. In these circumstances, I refuse leave to appeal.