COURT: Defendant, Lam Chiu-lau, pleaded guilty before a magistrate on the following four charges and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence. The 1st and the 2nd counts are arson, contrary to Section 60(1) and (3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. The 3rd count is attempted murder, contrary to Common Law and Sections 159G and 159J(1)(a) of the same Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. And the 4th count is assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to Common Law and punishable under Section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212.
Now, the admitted facts, that means the facts that you have admitted in the Magistracy. All right, defendant, at the time you were 81 years old. And there was Au Lin, he was aged 73. And then there was a Chan Wing-kau, he was aged 78. All males, right. You were all living in an elderly home in Sham Shui Po. The defendant, at that time, occupied Bed A16, and Mr Au occupied Bed A18. They were close to each other, with A17 in between. And the bed of Mr Chan was A19, and then Bed 20, they were across the corridor.
Defendant, you had a grudge with Mr Au prior to the incident because Mr Au always shouted for no reason. The Mr Au had suffered from a stroke, and as a result, and at all material times, he could not move his left hand and left leg. And he was bedridden.
So on 10 January 2023 at 1210 hours, that means noon time, defendant you suddenly burnt your own bed, that is A16, causing damage to the mattress which is 50 centimetres x 40 centimetres was damaged. The bedsheet was damaged. The size was 30 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And also a window curtain nearby was damaged. The size was 50 centimetres x 40 centimetres. So that’s the subject of the 1st count, arson.
A forensic scientist subsequently found traces of light petroleum distillate, a highly flammable and common constituent in lighter fluid, on the bedsheet of Bed A16, which was seized.
Then, immediately after, the defendant you held a lighter and a burnt newspaper near Bed A20. That was on the other side of the corridor. You threw the burnt newspaper to Bed A20, on which no person was lying because the occupier of A20 happened to be visiting outside, so he wasn’t in bed. So Bed A20 was burnt, and causing damage on the mattress the size of 50 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And the bedsheet was damaged, 10 centimetres x 10 centimetres. And that’s the subject of the 2nd count, arson.
Again, the scientist found traces of light petroleum distillate, which is from the lighter and this bedsheet was seized.
And then, defendant, you walked towards Bed A18 and threw another burnt newspaper to this bed. And Mr Au was lying on A18. So this bed A18 was burnt, causing damage to the mattress, 50 centimetres x 10 centimetres damaged. The bedsheet, 30 centimetres x 10 centimetres, was damaged. Also, the trousers of Mr Au was damaged as well. And Mr Au’s left thigh sustained injuries. So that’s the subject matter of the 3rd count.
Lastly, at the time Mr Chan was sleeping in Bed 19, and he heard someone shouting for help. And he saw Bed A16 was on fire. So he shouted “extinguish the fire”. And then, defendant, you punched the right side of his face twice. You intended to stop him from shouting. So that’s the subject matter of the 4th count.
And then, Mr Chan subdued you on the ground and the case was reported to the police. And the fire was actually put out by the automatic sprinkler installed at the elderly home. One nursing staff and nine elderly residents were evacuated during this incident.
The police attended the scene and arrested you. And you remained silent under caution. So the police officers seized two lighters, two bottles of rice wine, the window curtain, one bedsheet near bed A16, another two bedsheets and some ashes were seized at Beds A18 and A20. CCTV capturing the whole incident was also seized.
Mr Au and Mr Chan were both sent to the Caritas Medical Centre for medical treatment. So in relation to Mr Au, he sustained burn of about 0.5 to 1 per cent, second degree burn, and a 4-centimetre diameter blister on his left thigh. Mr Au was discharged on 12 January 2023 as his condition was stable. In relation to Mr Chan, he sustained abrasion and tenderness on his right cheek, and he was discharged immediately after checking.
The defendant admitted that he burnt Bed A16 and Bed A20. At the time when he admitted the 1st count and the 2nd count, he intended to damage the property particularised in the charge, or he was reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. And the defendant admitted that at all material times he had attempted to murder Mr Au in the course of committing the 3rd count, during which he had intention to kill Mr Au. So those were the facts you have admitted.
Now, the background and the mitigation. According to the antecedent statement, the defendant was born in January 1942. So he is now 82 years of age, or 83. 82 years of age. The defendant, you, had a total of 12 previous convictions, including murder, wounding with intent, theft and gambling. You were educated up to Form 3 level and was unemployed at the time of the arrest.
Your counsel Mr David Ma provided further background information on you for my consideration. The defendant was described as a loner with no relatives or friends. He was living on social welfare allowances, and was arranged by the authorities to live in the elderly home in question.
The defendant was convicted of murder at the age of 39, when he killed his baby son. He also wounded his wife. And he was sentenced to death, actually. But later it was commuted to life imprisonment, and which further later commuted to 37 years of imprisonment. And he has served a lengthy sentence for about 25 years. So when he was first released from prison, he committed offences of violence a few more times. And so he was in and out of prison. His last conviction was wounding with intent, and he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment in 2019.
Mr Ma submitted that prior to the defendant’s conviction of murder, he was working as a factory worker and construction worker. The protracted period of repeated incarceration had turned the defendant to be an unskilled and unsociable old man. He was lonely and frustrated, vulnerable to his emotions, which further provoked his recourse to violence. The defendant himself has an insight that he is a threat to the society and to himself if left to live his solitary life in open setting. The defendant is ashamed to ask for leniency, and he asks this court to understand him. And it is his wish to spend the rest of his life in custody for the benefit of the society.
Mr Ma referred to the case of Lo Man Kit, which quoted the case of Lee Wai Keung, and submitted there is no sentencing guideline for attempted murder, as the facts varied a great deal. He also referred this court to the cases of Kwan Chor Leung and Lam Kam Loy, in which the courts remarked that arson is an offence of the utmost gravity, where the gravity depends on the facts of any particular case.
In the present case, the defendant committed the attempted murder by means of arson. The defence accepted that there may be aggravating factors which may increase the sentence to be imposed. And these are the factors of this case. Some of them may be aggravating factors.
Now, the scene was an elderly home equipped with sprinkler system, and the fire was set at noon time. Though it’s unclear how many inhabitants were there, but it’s reasonable to assume that there were other people living there apart from Mr Au and Mr Chan. Mr Au was 73 years old and bedridden, and he suffered burns and a 4-centimetre blister on his left thigh. And Mr Chan was assaulted when he was shouting for help. So the defendant was trying to stop Mr Chan’s effort to stop him, that is the defendant, perpetrating the crime. And the defendant did not use any other inflammable accelerant other than the lighter and the burnt newspaper, which is thrown on the bed of Mr Au. And there was no evidence of premeditation before he set fire to his own bed, and then the bed of Mr Au.
Mr Ma referred this court to the facts of the cases I have mentioned, Lo Man Kit, Lam Kam Loy, Kwan Chor Leung and Liu Suet Ha, and what sentences were passed by the court. And Mr Ma acknowledged that none of these authorities cited would be readily applicable in the present case. However, these cases show how the court approached with delicacy the relevant matters. Mr Ma submitted that the fact that there were other inhabitants, that Mr Au was bedridden and that the defendant assaulted Mr Chan, who tried to stop him, they were all aggravating factors. And Mr Ma submitted that a starting point of 15 years may be appropriate in this case.
As for the two arson charges, Mr Ma submitted they should be considered as the contemporaneous act perpetrated by the defendant in the context of the attempted murder. The damage to the properties were rather limited, though there was the potential of impairment to the premises, to those residing at the elderly home and to the neighbourhood. Mr Ma asked this court to consider imposing concurrent sentences for these two offences with the attempted murder.
For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Mr Ma submitted that Mr Chan’s injury was minor. And to avoid double counting, Mr Ma also asked this court to order the sentence of this offence to run concurrently with all others.
Now, then this is my consideration for the sentence.
Attempted murder and arson are both serious offences. As submitted by Mr Ma and confirmed by the case law, circumstances for arson and, indeed, attempted murder vary greatly, so that the sentence to be imposed is fact sensitive. Other cases do not really afford much assistance. As far as arson is concerned, at least with the presence of sprinklers and that the crime was committed in midday rendered it less serious when compared to cases such as Lo Man Kit. In that case the defendant set out an explosion in the kitchen after threatening to rape the victim, and he also tried to suffocate the victim with a pillow.
For the case of Lam Kam Loy, where the defendant in mid-life crisis set fire at night with thinner in his home where his wife and daughter were also living, and he tried to stop them from leaving when the fire is spread.
For the case of Kwan Chor Leung, the defendant was in high emotion and set fire to a warehouse in which people were living in the early hours of the morning, and he secured the gates to stop the people from leaving.
For the last case of Liu Suet Ha, the defendant set fire to the quilt covering her husband and spilled liquid, possibly thinner, on the husband’s right arm. So comparing to all those cases, this one is less serious.
Nevertheless, as considered by Mr Ma, there were aggravating factors here. In particularly, the defendant attempted to kill Mr Au, who was bedridden, by setting fire to his bed. The defendant is an old man, 82 years of age now. Yet he still remained a threat to the society. He held a grudge against Mr Au simply because Mr Au was making noise. And to him, Mr Au was making noise with no reason. But we don’t know, if he was in pain, that’s why he made noises, but anyway, that was why he held a grudge against Mr Au. And the defendant was easily provoked and reacted with such drastic and dangerous act, to set fire to the beds.
I accept, on the evidence, that it does appear the defendant was acting on the spur of the moment and not premeditation. And he did not use any other inflammable accelerators apart from the lighter and the newspaper. And the damage were mainly beddings and curtains.
So having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a starting point of 15 years is appropriate for the attempted murder offence. So for the two arson offences, I am of the view that a starting point of 6 years is appropriate. And for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence, a starting point of 3 months is appropriate under the circumstances.
And the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, which is timely plea. And so he is entitled to a full one-third discount. I also agree with Mr Ma that the circumstances of this whole case is such that all the sentences should run concurrently.
So for the 1st count, arson, 4 years. 2nd count, arson, 4 years. 3rd count, attempted murder, 10 years. The 4th count, the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 2 months. All to run concurrently, making a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.