COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, contrary to Common Law and one count of arson with intent, contrary to section 60 of the Crimes Ordinance.
Summary of Facts reveal the following:
At 0222 on 10 September 2021, smoke and fire came out of Room 1229, Block 13, Pak Tin Estate. Police officers and firemen soon arrived at the scene.
The deceased who resided at Room 1224 soon discovered fire had broken out in his block. He woke his family up. The family room was filled with black smoke. He then asked his family to go to the balcony where they got wet towels to cover their mouths and noses.
Soon the deceased complained that he could not breathe and climbed out of the balcony window. While the deceased was climbing out, he fell from the window and landed on the ground. He passed away instantly.
A neighbour, Ms Wong, at Room 1226 saw the defendant argued with his girlfriend outside Room 1229. After a while, Ms Wong smelled and saw smoke coming out of Room 1229.
A neighbour, Ms Chan, at Room 1227 heard arguments and utterance from a male, “Burn down the Pak Tin Estate” at about 1.45 in the morning. Ms Chan then saw smoke coming out from Room 1229.
CCTV revealed that the defendant and his girlfriend went up to Room 1229 at about 1.15 am and left at about 2.14 am. At about 2.15 am, when they left the block of building, they told the security guards that there was smoke at Room 1229. Room 1229 belonged to the girlfriend of the defendant.
The defendant and his girlfriend were arrested by police officers at about 8.20 am on the same day at Shek Kip Mei Estate, the defendant’s residence. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had arguments with his girlfriend earlier, they then returned to Room 1229 where he had his cigarette and set fire on some clothing. He told police officers that he had consumed three to four cans of beer earlier that night.
The cause of death of the deceased was found to be multiple injuries caused from fall from height. Autopsy revealed inflammation of air passage with soot-laden mucus, pulmonary congestion and oedema as a result of inhalation of smoke and hot gas.
11 residents were also affected by the fire and sent to the hospital for treatment. Further, the Housing Authority had to spend over $200,000 in repairing the building.
The defendant admitted in the Magistrates’ Court that he intentionally, unlawfully and dangerously set fire to some clothes in Room 1229 which caused the death of the deceased, the injuries to other residents, and the damage to the property of the Hong Kong Housing Authority.
The defendant is 41, educated up to Form 1 level. Prior to his arrest, he was unemployed. The defendant has 16 criminal records, three relating to criminal damage.
Deliberately setting fire in a public housing estate at the earlier hour of the night must be deterred. It seemed from the Summary of Facts that the so-called argument between the defendant and his girlfriend was related to some very minor personal issue. The two then returned and left the building together. They even informed the security guards about smoke coming out. Thereafter they went to the defendant’s own apartment and stayed together.
It was not difficult to envisage the risk that posed to the residents in the middle of the night. Old and young are residing at those public housing estates. Chaos, injuries and even death would inevitably result.
As I have just mentioned, apart from the demise of the deceased, 11 residents had been sent to hospitals. The mother of the deceased was sent to the Intensive Care Unit for inhalation injury and carbon monoxide poisoning. Fortunately, she had recovered.
Judging from the autopsy report, the deceased was desperate in getting fresh air at the time just prior to his demise. We all know the temperature of smoke in a building fire could be very high, hence, the deceased suffered all those injuries in his airway. His act in climbing out for more fresh air was not unreasonable and should have been contemplated by the defendant.
The only mitigating factor in this case was the absence of any inflammable substance or liquid. In HKSAR v Lee Sai Yau, CACC 444/2005, the applicant, 17 at the time, with other persons set fire with thinner at the Immigration Tower, killing an immigration officer. A sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment was given for both the manslaughter and the arson charge. It was then said:
“A 10-year sentence imposed upon this applicant for the act of deliberately starting a fire in a building housing many persons in which fire death was caused, he having gone to the building with fire paraphernalia in hand, cannot said to be manifestly excessive, even granted the applicant’s age and the good work that he carried out whilst on bail.”
The defendant in this case being an adult with multiple conviction records, three related to criminal damage, set fire in the middle of the night when people were least alert and most vulnerable, killed one and injured 11 residents. The seriousness of his conduct could hardly be described to be lower than the 17-year-old, Lee Sai Yau, who set fire with a thinner.
For the 1st count, a starting point of 12 years will be adopted. The defendant will be given the one-third full discount for his plea. As such, for the 1st count the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd count, given the number of residents affected and the amount of property damaged, a starting point of 6 years will be adopted. Likewise, a full one-third discount will be given. As such, for the 2nd count, the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Having considered the totality principle and the overall criminality of the defendant, the two sentences are ordered to run concurrently to each other.
In conclusion, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 8 years’ imprisonment.