HKSAR v. LEE HON LEUNG

DCCC 1039/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1039 OF 2010

____________

____________

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The Defendant has been convicted on his own pleas on 4 counts on the indictment, 2 counts of arson, contrary to Sections 60(1) and (3) and 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, namely counts 1 and 3 on the indictment, and 2 counts of attempted arson, contrary to Sections 60(1) and (3), 63(1) 159G and 159J(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.  All the offences were committed around the same time, in the late hours of 8^th July, 2010 and early hours of 9^th July, 2010, at Chin Kwai House, Kwai Chung Estate, Kwai Chung , where the Defendant is a resident on the 17^th floor.  Chin Kwai House is a  public housing building with 40 floors.

3.  One of the residents on the 17^th floor saw some smoke outside her home at around 10.30 p.m. on 8^th July, 2010.  She went outside and found a shoe burning outside Flat 1710 – she immediately put out the fire with water – the wall beside the iron grill of Flat 1710 was darkened (Count 1).

4.  At 12.30 a.m. on 9^th July, 2010, the same tenant heard noises of a lift door opening and closing repeatedly. She watched the CCTV of the lifts and saw an unknown person setting fire to a slipper and using a stick to push the burning slipper into the lift. However, nothing inside the lift caught fire (Count 2 of attempted arson).

5.  Later at 4.25 a.m. on 9^th July, 2010, a security guard of the building saw through the CCTV something burning inside one of the lifts, and the wall of the lift caught fire and was darkened as a result. The fire was put out by the security guards (Count 3).

6.  Whilst conducting investigation, police found a strong smell of thinner emanating from Room 1704. They laid ambush in the vicinity and at 5.49 a.m., the Defendant was seen walking towards the lift lobby of the 17^th floor with a piece of tissue held in his left hand and a lighter held in his right hand. He attempted to set the tissue paper alight with the lighter (Count 4).

7.  The police disclosed their identity and shouted at the Defendant.  The Defendant ran but was eventually caught, subdued and arrested. Under caution, he said that he set fire to things just for fun and asked for a chance.

8.  The Defendant has a number of previous convictions. His record dates back to 1983 and shows that he has had 3 previous court appearances for a variety of matters  including a previous conviction in 2006 for an offence of arson, when he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

9.  After hearing Counsel in mitigation, I adjourned the matter until today, calling for background and psychiatric reports.  These are now before me and I have duly considered the contents of these reports. The Defendant has received psychiatric treatment since 2004, and was admitted to the Kwai Chung Hospital in May, 2010 owing to his unsatisfactory mental state. He was discharged 3 weeks later and attended follow-up in West Kowloon Psychiatric Centre.   The reports disclose that the Defendant started to drink when he was in his early twenties and developed thinner abuse since 2005 by sniffing soaked tissue paper. The Defendant was diagnosed by Dr. Oliver Chan, visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre to have mental and behavioural disorders due to multiple drug use and use of other psychoactive substances, harmful use of volatile solvents  as well as dissocial personality trait. His mental state was viewed to be stable as long as he refrained from volatile solvent misuse. In-patient treatment was not required, and continued out-patient follow-up was suggested. Dr. Robyn Ho, another visiting psychiatrist at the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre opined that the Defendant suffered from harmful use of volatile solvent and alcohol. His mental state had become stable in the last few months because he has abstained from abusing these whilst in custody. He also suffers from dissocial personality disorder with limited insight into the physical and mental problems of using illicit drugs and his motivation to stop his substance abuse is poor. Dr. Ho viewed his prognosis as guarded and that he was very likely to reinstate in substance abuse once he is discharged. Dr. Ho also did not consider in-patient treatment was required. He is considered fit to serve any sentence deemed fit by the Court.

10.  Arson is obviously a serious offence.  The inherent danger in any uncontrolled fire is always regarded as an offence of particular gravity. Fires can get out of hand quickly and there is a substantial risk of serious damage to property and also to lives. In particular, the risk of serious damage to property and lives is greater where a fire is started in a multi-storey residential building in the late hours when most people would be asleep.  Here, it is only by the greatest good fortune that another resident on the same floor as the Defendant saw the smoke and put out the fire and also alerted the security personnel of the building.  The Defendant clearly had little or no regard for the likely consequences of his actions which could have been catastrophic.  The fact that the fires that were started were contained quite quickly had nothing whatever to do with any action on the part of the Defendant.

11.  Counsel put forward in mitigation that although arson was a serious offence, the facts here were not of the worst.  It did not involve personal grudges nor the intention to injure anyone. It was of a relatively small scale.  On that evening, the Defendant had inhaled thinner – he had been irritated by cockroaches, and could not control himself and hence committed the offences.   The Defendant was genuinely remorseful, as reflected in the letter he had written, which is also before me.

12.  There are no sentencing guidelines for offences of arson – the gravity varies from case to case.

13.  In this case, the fires that the Defendant set were small in scale and were put out in time causing no injury to persons and little damage to property.  Nevertheless, what the Defendant did was still extremely dangerous.  The fires were set at times when most people would have been in bed and most vulnerable.  This is also not the first time that the Defendant has committed such an offence.

14.  Having considered the circumstances of the offences and the circumstances of the Defendant, I consider that the appropriate starting point for each of the charges is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The Defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third to reflect his pleas of guilty.  On each charge he is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. I have borne in mind the totality principle.  I shall order that the sentences on the charges be concurrent. So the total sentence will be 2 years’ imprisonment.