HKSAR v. LOK WAI, ROEWE

DCCC 447/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 447 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of arson. He without lawful excuse damaged by fire a door and the floor in front of the door, the property of another, intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged, and being reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered.

2.  This plea was to an amended charge.  Originally, the defendant was charged with intending to endanger the life of a Mr Yeo. This Mr Yeo is a fortune teller, and the damaged property was the door to his office on the 23rd floor of a building on Jaffe Road, Causeway Bay. 

3.  The defendant was Mr Yeo’s client and had been since 2003.  However, in 2012, the defendant attributed disasters in his personal life to this Mr Yeo, and it led to this offence. 

4.  This offence took place in January 2013.  In July 2012, the defendant had approached Mr Yeo to return a gift worth nearly $13,000 to him, and Mr Yeo did pay him the cash equivalent.  A few months later, January 2013, the defendant again went to Mr Yeo’s office and demanded compensation.  A staff member turned him away.  Half an hour later, the defendant returned, having bought a can and a bottle of paint thinner.  He lit the can of thinner, setting it on fire by the front door and left.  He took the bottle of thinner with him.  The defendant then proceeded to wait on the 4th floor of the same building.  He had entered a bar, ordered a coffee and waited for the police to come to arrest him.

5.  After his arrest, he admitted the offence to the police.  The police seized a lighter from the defendant’s body and found the bottle of thinner nearby.  The defendant had singed the hairs on his arms and hair on his head.

6.  I have seen photographs of the door and the damage inflicted.  Obviously, the heat from the fire cracked the glass door.  The floor in front of the door had some burn marks, and there were smoke stains visible on the ceiling above the door.  The damaged area is not extensive.  The fire was obviously contained to the can that he set fire to.  It did not spread.  I was told that there were about eight to nine people in the office at that time, and the building’s fire sprinklers put out the fire.  

7.  The defendant is 42 years old and until now had a clear record.  He also had a family of two sons and a wife.  His sons are now 10 and 7 years old.  I say “had” because his wife left him in early 2012, taking their children to live with her parents in the United States as their marriage had broken down.

8.  I was told in mitigation that after they married, they failed to conceive.  The defendant’s wife met and engaged the services of this fortune teller.  He predicted the birth of a son and two years later, the defendant became a father.  Subsequently, the defendant’s wife had a lot of faith in this man. 

9.  When she became pregnant a second time, this fortune teller told the defendant and his wife that this second child would be famous and a great leader.  His advice was that this second child should not be born in Hong Kong because the highest office he could attain to in Hong Kong is that of the Chief Executive.  His advice was this child should be born in China and brought up in China.  He suggested Shanghai was an appropriate place.  As a result of this advice, the defendant, his wife and the first child moved to Shanghai.  The defendant was also told that he would be a very successful businessman in Shanghai.

10.  In short, the defendant left Hong Kong, leaving a lucrative business that he had built up on his own.  He had been earning between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars a month in this business.  He also had three properties, two in Hong Kong and one in Shanghai.  Defence counsel calculated that when he, the defendant, left Hong Kong, he was worth about HK$17 million.

11.  After he moved to Shanghai, the business he started failed.  He sold all his properties to finance that business but to no avail.  He lost everything.  After that, his marriage broke down and his wife took his two children to live in the United States.

12.  In mitigation, it was submitted that the defendant became desperate and distraught, having lost everything, he came back to Hong Kong to start again.  He wanted to start his own business but needed to finance that.  He then approached Mr Yeo.  In essence, he wanted a refund of fees he had paid over the years as well as gifts.

13.  In January this year, during the defendant’s second visit to Mr Yeo, Mr Yeo refused to see him.  I was told that this made the defendant angry and emotional.  It led him to commit this offence.  He wanted the public to know that Mr Yeo was a fraud.  He wanted to ruin his reputation. 

14.  It was stressed in mitigation that this was not premeditated.  He did not go there with paint thinner.  It was only when Mr Yeo refused to see him that he went to buy the paint thinner and returned.

15.  In mitigation, the defendant made it clear that he must be held accountable for this offence.  He had to take responsibility for his actions.  He wrote a long letter in mitigation.  Defence counsel said the defendant accepts full responsibility and does not attempt to minimise the seriousness of the offence. 

16.  Defence counsel does, as is his duty, explain how this offence came about.  He emphasises the defendant is a broken man who does apportion blame to Mr Yeo.  Be it right or wrong, the fact is he lost everything after following Mr Yeo’s advice completely.

17.  Quite clearly, from the reports I obtained, the saddest part for the defendant is losing his family.  His family having moved to the United States, he cannot afford to see his children and has not seen them since they left. 

18.  I did adjourn for a background report and a psychologist’s report.  I will not repeat the details or the contents of those reports, but the defendant told the psychologist why he committed this offence and explained he wanted to harm the victim’s reputation and attract the media’s attention to the lack of control over fortune tellers.  He did not intend to harm anyone nor did he have a history of violence.  The psychologist opined he did not have any psychological issues now nor was a pyromaniac, and his risk of re-offending is very low. 

19.  The probation officer in preparing the report spoke to the defendant and his wife, and she told the probation officer that he did become very emotionally drained by her leaving him with their children.  She says she left him alone to face the failure of his business and the broken family unit.

20.  I have heard full mitigation and had two reports to assist me in sentencing.  Both prosecution and defence referred to an authority, HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu CACC 429 of 2007.  There are no guidelines for this offence.  Gravity will differ from case to case.  That authority does go through several other similar cases and sentences imposed or upheld.

21.  What is relevant here is the defendant’s plea of guilty, his remorse, previous clear record.  I accept the defendant is not a man with a history of violence and has acted out of character.  I accept this offence was not premeditated.  It was impulsive.  This was not a triad‑related scenario nor was the defendant motivated by intimidation.  This was not a scenario where alcohol or drugs played a part in inducing this behaviour. Luckily, nobody suffered any injuries and, luckily, the damage to property was minimal but I cannot ignore the fact paint thinner was used and, potentially, the situation could have been much more serious.

22.  What I do accept is the defendant has lost everything he built up and does blame this Mr Yeo.  He described Mr Yeo as a fraud and a man who cheats or preys on superstitious women.  I accept when Mr Yeo refused to see the defendant, he became angry and snapped.  

23.  After considering all of the above factors, the reports at hand, the facts of the case, the mitigation put forward, the defendant’s plea and previous clear record, I find a starting point of 3 years and 6 months appropriate.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.  For this offence, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months.