HKSAR v. CHENG SAU CHU

DCCC 870/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 870 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of arson, contrary to section 60(2) and (3) and section 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  The Summary of Facts state that on 30 August 2014, a fire broke out at Room 707 of Tsui Ying House, Tsui Ping Estate (South), Kwun Tong which is a public housing unit occupied by the defendant.  As a result of the fire, 150 residents from the 5th through to the 8th floors had to be evacuated.  Fire officers broke into the flat and found two ignition points on two beds.  The fire was put out within 10 minutes.  No trace of a fire accelerant was found.

3.  The defendant remained untraceable until she surrendered to the Kwun Tong Police Station on 3 September.  Under caution, the defendant admitted starting the fire by setting light to piles of paper on the two beds.  She left the premises when the fire took hold and wandered about the street until deciding to surrender herself to the police.

4.  When she appeared in Magistrates’ Court, two psychiatrists’ reports from the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre were called for, and these confirmed she was fit to plead.  Both reports also recommended the defendant be made the subject of a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

5.  At the time the defendant appeared before this court, those reports were already two months old, and before deciding the appropriate sentence, I adjourned and sought two further reports from psychiatrists together with a probation officer’s background report.  In doing so, I did make it clear that I considered arson was a very serious offence, I was not bound to follow any recommendation concerning a hospital order, and that I could sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment with a recommendation that during the term of her imprisonment she receive psychiatric care.

6.  The reports are now before this court, and I understand from Mr Cheung who appears for the defendant they have been explained to her and she accepts the contents of those reports.  I note that the defendant is of previous clear record.  

The Probation Officer’s Background Report

7.  This sets out the defendant’s family background.  Her father passed away many years ago.  She has a poor relationship with her mother and younger sister.  The defendant’s academic performance is described as being fair, and after leaving school, she was unable to maintain a stable work pattern due to her inability to get along with her colleagues and work as part of a team.   

8.  The defendant told the probation officer she committed the offence because she disliked her home, because it was too large. She regretted what she had done and had no intention of causing harm to others.  The probation officer concluded the offence reflected the defendant’s lonely life without support.

The Two Psychiatrists’ Reports

9.  Dr Oliver Chan, his report is dated 28 November 2014.  Again Dr Chan sets out the defendant’s family background.  She is single, never married, non-smoker, non-drinker and denied illicit substance abuse.  She suffered from thyroid cancer, however, has received surgery and is now attending outpatient medical clinic for follow-up.  She has been known to the mental health services since 1995 and hospitalised twice.  She has symptoms of depression, including low mood, lack of motivation, negative cognitions and thoughts of self-harm.  She was diagnosed as having depression but disengaged herself from the health service. 

10.  In the past two years, she felt increasing tension.  She perceived that her home environment, namely, this public housing unit was too large and this caused her stress.  Although she had been living at the unit for about 10 years, she could not tell Dr Chan why this feeling had emerged.  She did not regard her own mental condition as deteriorating and denied paranoid ideas.  This summary shows that at this stage, she has little insight into her own condition.

11.  On the night in question, she became determined to burn the flat, seeing it as the only way out of the tension.  She knew the act was illegal but did not intend to harm others. 

12.  She has been on remand at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre now for about two months, and she is currently observed to be stable.  Dr Chan observed her line of reasoning and the use of phrase as being very odd.  Apparently, the defendant felt much better, having been at Siu Lam.  That is because she regards herself as being too eccentric and too independent in the community which caused imbalances in her life, and delusional atmosphere and mood was evident but she denied hallucination.  She had no remorse towards her situation since she believed it was the only way out of her predicament.

13.  The diagnosis was of depression.  Her behaviour was suggestive of a psychotic illness possibly schizophrenia.  Further in-patient treatment was recommended and Dr Chan recommends a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance for a period of three to four months.

14.  One of my concerns in this case is that the defendant is not simply returned to the environment which she found too stressful in her condition such as to cause a repeat of this incident.  I do note from the report of Dr Oliver Chan that upon expiration of any hospital order, contingent upon her condition and insight at that stage, she would either be arranged to reside in supervised accommodation or be transferred to a mental hospital under section 36 of the Mental Health Ordinance. 

15.  The second psychiatrist is Dr S H Lui.  He is also a visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre, and his report is also dated 28 November 2014.  In his report, he refers to his earlier report of 18 September 2014.  Dr Lui is more conclusive in his finding, namely, that he says the defendant is suffering from chronic schizophrenia marked by disordered thinking, delusional mood and poor personal functioning.  He, likewise, recommends a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.

16.  Arson is a very serious offence, and sentences tend to be in the region of 5 years.  A high sentence is considered appropriate because of the inherent danger of an uncontrolled fire.  This is particularly so in a high-rise residential building. 

17.  As mentioned, the court is not obliged to follow the recommendation of the two psychiatrists and make a hospital order. I take into account the following.  First the defendant is of previous clear record. Second although 150 residents had to be evacuated, the fire was quickly extinguished and no harm was apparently caused to those residents or substantial damage caused to the premises concerned or other parts of the building. 

18.  Of great significance to my mind is the fact that no fire accelerant was used.  The reason for setting fire to the premises, as expressed to the probation officer and as appears in the two psychiatrists’ reports, reflects what Dr Oliver Chan says is a very odd line of reasoning, and this in turn must reflect a chronic mental condition.  As I mentioned, according to Dr Chan, upon completion of any term under hospital order, the defendant will be arranged either supervised accommodation or be transferred to a mental hospital under section 36 of the ordinance.

19.  In cases such as this, there is a need to balance the punishment of the offence for which the defendant has been convicted with the rehabilitation of the defendant.  In all the circumstances, I shall adopt the recommendation and make a hospital order, and this will be for a period of 4 months.  This hospital order is in pursuance of the recommendation from two psychiatrists and is made under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.  For such purpose, the defendant will be committed to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre to serve the hospital order. 

20.  Again I bear in mind when making this order the comments made by Dr Chan that upon completion, depending upon the defendant’s condition at that stage, either she will be arranged supervised accommodation or she will be committed to a mental hospital under section 36 of the ordinance.

21.  Defendant, stand up, please.  For this offence of arson for which you have been convicted on your own plea, you will be made the subject of a hospital order under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance.  And for such purpose, you will be committed to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre.