HKSAR v. MANPREET SINGH

DCCC 1556/2024

[2025] HKDC 2023

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1556 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  The defendant (“D”)  pleaded guilty to and agreed to the facts relating to an offence of “Arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered”, contrary to sections 60(2)  and (3)  and 63(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, was therefore convicted as charged.

Facts

2.  Mr CHOW lived in a flat situated at Nos.157-159 Reclamation Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

3.  On 12 September 2024, CHOW was informed by other residents of the building that a Fire Services Installations Improvement Works notice hung on a fire services installation at the staircase between 5/F and 6/F was burnt. The notice was placed by the staff of the responsible fire services installation contractor to indicate that improvement work was being carried out to the installation.

4.  CCTV outside CHOW's flat captured D using a lighter to light up the said notice at 8:51 p.m. on 11 September 2024. Case was then reported to the police.

5.  At around 9:41 p.m. on 13 September 2024, PC 61254 arrived at D's flat. D was then arrested. A lighter was seized from D's flat.

6.  At all material times, D, at the staircase between 5/F and 6/F, Nos. 157-159 Reclamation Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong, without lawful excuse destroyed or damaged by fire one "Fire Services Installations Improvement Works" notice, property belonging to Choice Right Engineering Consultants (Hong Kong)  Limited, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, and being reckless as to whether the lives of others would be thereby endangered.

Personal background and mitigation

7.  D has one previous criminal record of immigration offence and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment in 2018.  

Mitigation

8.  Counsel for D submitted that D is now aged 33. He stayed in Hong Kong as a refugee. He married to a Filipino domestic helper in Hong Kong. D was under the influence of both medication and alcohol at the material time. His mental state examination in February 2025 seems to suggest “psychosis, likely schizophrenia…psychotic depression.” 

9.  Mr Hingorani submitted at the initial mitigation on 27 November 2025 that the current arson case fell into the lower end of the spectrum because:

(a)  there was no injury to person and loss of life;

(b)  no evidence of any accelerant being used in setting the fire;

(c)  it was not a triad related incident;

(d)  the small flame was caused by litting up a notice at the rear staircase; and

(e)  no one suffered any serious or fatal injuries.

10.  Mr Hingorani referred me to two District Court cases. But I am inclined to follow what was said in two Court of Appeal cases, i.e. HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu CACC 429/2007 and HKSAR v Godhaniya Haja Samat CACC 264/2017. 

11.  I adjourned the hearing for sentence for two psychiatric reports to check D’s suitability for hospital order and for such additional information as how big was the said notice and how long the written notice was burnt.

12.  On or about 4 December 2025, the prosecution informed me that the said notice was of the size of 148 mm x 210 mm, which is about half of A4 size paper. It was burned for not less than 27 seconds but not exceeding one minute as suggested by the prosecution.

13.  The two psychiatric reports from Dr Lui and Dr Yip dated 9^th and 12^th  December 2025 respectively reflect that in-patient psychiatric treatment is not warranted. Out-patient psychiatric service would be recommended. In other words, hospital order is not recommended.  

14.  Mr Hingorani filed additional written mitigation dated 12^th December 2025 to address me on a few Court of Appeal cases with starting point from 4 to 10 years. He submitted that the present case is much less serious than those cases.  

Sentencing

15.  I have carefully considered the mitigation and the authorities, and the photographs depicting the scene were produced.

16.  There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of arson. In HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu, Yeung JA (as he then was)  said: 

“23. We have reviewed a number of relevant decided cases. As we pointed out above, 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. ”

17.  In the present case, the gravity of the subject arson is reflected in the facts. D was seen lit up the notice with a cigarette lighter. In other words, he deliberately set fire in the said location. The fire was small and it was off quickly. The damage appeared to be light.

18.  In HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu, the Court of Appeal said:

“15. Hong Kong is such a densely populated city that unexpected occurrences of fire are bound to cause extremely serious injuries and deaths/or losses of properties. A deliberate act of arson, especially when done in a multi-storey residential building, will very likely cause extremely grave consequences. And indeed, it is clear from the line of relevant judicially decided cases that such conduct will result in heavy casualties as well as substantial economic losses.

16. In order to protect the lives and properties of the public from serious threats, acts of arson — in particular those relating to triads or involving intimidation or revenge — must be sanctioned with heavy, deterrent sentences.”

19.  In SJ vs SWS [2021] 1 HKLRD 1117, the Court of Appeal said:

“52. The Court of Appeal has pointed out time and again that arson is an offence of particular severity. This is because Hong Kong is densely populated where the living and working environments are relatively crowded. An occurrence of fire often causes extremely grave consequences, possibly resulting in serious injuries or losses of properties. The offence of arson aims at heavily combating deliberate acts of arson, preventing the public from being harmed by such acts. Out of considerations of the public interest, the court must impose a heavy sentence for the offence of arson so as to protect the public, mete out penalties to and openly condemn the offenders, as well as to deter the offenders and others who intend to commit the crime from doing so; otherwise the lives and properties of the public will be under serious threat. Therefore, it has been the practice of the court to impose immediate imprisonment on offenders of arson… ”

20.  The Court of Appeal in R v Li Mun Tong CACC 309/1994 said:

“Arson, because of the inherent danger in any uncontrolled fire, is always regarded as an offence of particular gravity. Arsonists exhibit reckless disregard for life and property.”

21.  While the court treats this offence seriously, a defendant’s act and its potential risk to residents and public are significant weighing factors. In the present case, the potential harm caused to all the residents of the building is relatively low. No one is injured nor any loss of criminal damage except a burnt notice.  

22.  The Court of Appeal said the following factors are correctly identified by the judge in Godhaniya Haja Samat (where 2 years’ imprisonment was upheld):

(a)  the fire was lighted in a multi-storey residential building which would risk the lives of all the occupants of the building;

(b)  the fire was started in the early hours when the occupants were asleep;

(c)  the location was the staircase landing where the occupants disposed their rubbish;

(d)  the staircase was the only access to the building; and

(e)  smoke quickly engulfed the staircase.

23.  The facts of the present case is therefore less serious compared to Godhaniya Haja Samat. In that case, the sentencing judge said:

“…the damage to the landing of the staircase was minimal … no evidence any of the occupants required medical treatment as a result of smoke inhalation.”

Starting point

24.  Having considered all the circumstances of the case including those mentioned in paragraph 15, I am satisfied that the proper starting point is 18 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence reduction

25.  D pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to one-third discount of sentence. 

26.  There is no other valid mitigating factor for any further discount on sentence.

Conclusion

27.  D is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.