HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI HUNG

DCCC 1255/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1255 OF 2010

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of arson, contrary to sections 60(1) and (3) and 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200.

2.  In summary at about 10:30 hours on the 4th October this year Michael Ip parked his car outside the village hall of Wong Nei Tun Village in Yuen Long.  When returning in the evening at about 23:00 hours Mr Ip found his car had been stolen.  About two hours later Madam Lau, a resident living at Lam Hau Village, also in Yuen Long, heard an explosion outside.  Madam Lau saw on the waste ground near where she lived Mr Ip’s car on fire and the defendant throwing something on to the burning car, which intensified the fire. 

3.  The defendant then left but was soon apprehended by the police.  The defendant’s hair was partly burnt; there were dark marks on his face and his clothing smelt of petroleum.  Under caution the defendant said he was asked to burn the car for a financial reward.  I was told that reward was $5000.

4.  The defendant is aged 20.  Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221 provides no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.  Accordingly I called for a training centre report to provide me with background information on the defendant.  On reflection I also requested the Correctional Services to also consider whether the defendant was suitable for Detention Centre and Rehabilitation Centre. 

5.  The report details how the defendant had little interest in schooling, preferring to mingle with his peers all day long instead.  By the age of 14 he had only reached Primary 4 level.  After leaving school the defendant failed to keep a stable work pattern. Delinquent group association led to the defendant trying dangerous drugs and mixing with triad peers of the Wo Shing Wo triad society. This resulted in the defendant being brought to court for an assault case for which he was fined in 2007.  Although there was some apparent improvement in the next three years the defendant again tried dangerous drugs in mid 2009. Unemployment and the need for easy money led the defendant to commit the present offence of arson.

6.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said by Mr Wong together with the content of the letter written by the defendant.  I take into account the defendant is still young, although not of extreme youth and has no similar convictions. 

7.  I am told the defendant only set fire to the car but did not pour the petroleum over the car.  This appears contrary to the facts admitted by the defendant, in particular that he was seen throwing something on to the burning car which intensified the fire and that on arrest his clothing smelt of petroleum.  The defendant says he threw paper onto the fire.  I have my doubts whether the defendant was simply asked to set fire to the car.  There seems no sense that someone would pour petrol over the car then ask someone else to go along and set fire to the car. I am however satisfied whether the defendant poured the petrol on the car or not makes no difference to the sentence to be imposed.  The defendant is a party to the damage of the car by setting fire to the car.

8.  The defendant says he was asked by a female to set fire to the car and therefore believed this had something to do with a love affair.  This seems most unlikely. However the reason for setting the car on fire is unknown, the police having been unable to discover any possible motive, Mr Ip not knowing why his car was stolen or burnt or as the case may be not prepared to tell the police why. 

9.  There are no guidelines for offences of arson.  Having seen the photographs of the location I accept the offence took place where no other property or person was likely to be affected.  Although the value of the car was very low, only $8000, this can in no way justify setting alight someone else’s car.  The car is clearly a write off and Mr Ip will need to buy a new car.    

10.  In order to help the defendant develop more insight into his problems and cultivate his positive morals as well as strengthen his law-abiding mindset, a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision is said to be definitely beneficial to him.   The defendant is considered more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre. 

11.  Taking into account the defendant’s young age and plea of guilty I am satisfied in the circumstances of the case as presented to court I can properly deal with the defendant by way of a Detention Centre order and not the longer Training Centre or imprisonment.  I am satisfied this would be beneficial to the defendant’s rehabilitation.  The defendant is sentenced to detention in a Detention Centre.