HKSAR v. LEUNG KING MAN

DCCC844/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 844 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 5 charges of arson. I have consolidated the information into the following table :-

Charge	Date	Location	Damaged property/ owner
(1)	29.4.2009 0040 am	Outside rear exit of Welcome Supermarket in Mercury Street, North Point	Plastic trays Light box  Owner: Diary Farm
(2)	10.5.2009 10:45 pm	Causeway Bay Market 142, Electric Road	External wall of Causeway Bay Market Owner: HKSAR government
(3)	11.5.2009 3:35am	Shop E, G/F Rear lane 163, King’s Road	1. 500 vinyl records 2.some radios 3.some record players 4.one plastic canopy 5.some electric wires Owner: Lam Yat Tung
(4)	7.6.2009 2:40 am	Rear lane 151, King’s Road	Iron wares Owner: Lam Chang- meng
(5)	11.6.2009 2:10am	G/F, Jupiter Street	One foam box Owner: Ling Yuk Yeung

The facts of the case

2.  Charge 1.

At about 4 am on 29 April 2009, PW1 found that the plastic trays placed outside the rear exit of the supermarket were on fire. PW1 report the case to the police. After the fire was put out, it was found that the light box on the doorframe of the rear exit of the supermarket was damaged by fire. The supermarket suffered a loss of $15,000.

3.  Charge 2

At about 10.45 pm on 10 May 2009, PW2 noticed that something was burning at the rear lane next to Causeway Bay market. A few tiles on the wall of the rear lane of the market were damaged by fire.

4.  Charge 3.

At about 3.35 am on 11 May 2009, PW4 found that Shop E was on fire. He reported the case to the police. The proprietor of the shop, (PW5), confirmed that the following property were damaged by fire.

i.  500 vinyl musical records, valued at $5,000 in total.

ii.  A few old radios and record players, valued at $1,000 in total.

iii.  A plastic canopy valued at $3,000.

iv.  The electric wires and lighting of the shop, cost of repair was HK$2,500.

5.  Charge 4.

At about 2.40 am on 7 June 2009, PW6 noticed that something was burning in an iron cage placed outside an ironware shop at the rear lane of 151 Kings Road. PW6 reported the case to the police. The proprietor shop owner, (PW7); found that the fire damaged his ironware.

6.  Charge 5.

At about 2.10 am on 11 June 2009 PC1866, (PW8), spotted that the defendant entered an alley next to 23 of Jupiter Street. The defendant lit a foam box (P1) with a lighter. He left the scene. PW8 intercepted the defendant. Upon a body search, PW8 found a lighter on the defendant. The defendant was arrested by PW8. Under caution, the defendant said, “Ah sir, I burned the foam box because my work pressure was great. Give me a chance.” The proprietor, (PW9), confirmed that P1 was his property. He used P1 for storing ice cubes.

7.  In the cautioned interviews: -

i. The defendant admitted burning the items in charge 1 to 5.

ii. He claimed that he felt happier after he set fire to those items.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant has a clear record. He is now remorseful. He works as a chef and earned $7,500 per month. His parents are in their 60’s and they are now in court to demonstrate their support to him. The defendant also suffers from skin disease since he was 6 years old, the result of which has impact on his social life that he considers himself to be socially rejected. The defendant is willing to compensate the victims for all their losses, which amounts to HKD30,831.

Sentence

9.  In view of the mitigation I called for two psychiatric reports. They are now before me. Both reports say that the defendant does not suffer from any psychiatric problem and hospital order is therefore not recommended.

10.  He does, however, suffer from alcohol dependence since the defendant started to drink alcohol since 1997 and gradually increased to daily consumption in 2007 between 5 to 12 cans of beer.

11.  Each time when he set fire he had already consumed alcohol. He was aware that it was wrong but he could not explain why he set fire on these five occasions.

12.  The reports also say the defendant was a chef for the last 12 years. He also lived with his ex-girlfriend for two years but they were now separated since his was remanded in jail. The relationship seems to be a bit unpleasant as they quarrelled at least three times a week.

13.  The commission of the five offences were taking place at the late evenings or early hours of the morning when supermarket, market and shops were all closed.

14.  It was quiet at the time of the day and there was no people staying near to the vicinity. Fortunately there was no actual injury to anyone. The damage was to those properties mentioned in the charge.

15.  When I passed sentence on to the defendant I took into account that the defendant committed the five offences over a period of six weeks. He pleaded guilty to the charges. He has a clear record. He is willing to compensate the owners.

16.  I consider that a starting point of 15 months for each charge is appropriate to reflect the overall criminality. I also reduce the sentence to 10 months because of his guilty plea. 5 months on Charge 2 to 5 be concurrent to Charge 1. A total of 30 months.

Charge 1:  -  15 months to 10 months

Charge 2:  -  15 months to 10 months, 5 months concurrent to charge 1

Charge 3:  -  15 months to 10 months , 5 months concurrent to charge 1

Charge 4:  -  15 months to 10 months, 5 months concurrent to charge 1

Charge 5:  -  15 months to 10 months, 5 months concurrent to Charge 1

Total:  - 30 months.