HKSAR v. WU KIN PING

CCC47/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47 OF 2009

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above case 

 You have pleaded guilty to arson, being reckless as to whether life would be endangered by your intentional act of causing damage by fire in the government offices on the 4th Floor of Revenue Tower on 2 October 2008. 

You went to the premises of the Business Registration Office of the Inland Revenue Department armed with a number of containers of inflammable liquid that you had taken from your laundry shop.  It was petroleum-based cleaning fluid.  It is not exactly clear how much of the fluid you took, but there were a number of plastic containers later found in the premises.  You also took some towels to act as a wick when soaked in the fluid, together with a kitchen lighter.  It is plain that you had thought out what you were going to do, and that it was not an impulsive act.  

The offices are depicted in the photographs, which I have seen.  I have also seen two short video recordings of the event itself.  In the offices there are a series of counters for dealings between staff and visitors, with glass screens and trays underneath the glass screens that are similar to those found in banks.  Immediately upon entry, and without any warning, you poured a quantity of inflammable liquid into one of these document trays and stuffed the towel into it to soak up the liquid, and then set it alight.  That Counter No. 5 was not manned by staff at the time, but the adjacent one, No. 6, was.  You proceeded to pour more inflammable liquid onto Count No. 6, and you lit it.  The flames spread towards two members of the staff on the other side.  The video recordings show the flames leaping up the screens and damaging the ceilings.  According to the witnesses’ accounts, you continued to throw inflammable liquid or bottles containing liquid at the flames to intensify the burning.  Some of the liquid spilled onto your clothing, which also caught fire, as we have heard.  The video shows that the offices filled quickly with dense smoke. 

It is obvious that the danger to life caused by your acts was not just from the flames themselves, which do not seem to have lasted very long, but was also from the smoke.  Everyone knows that it is a potentially deadly feature of any fire.  This fire was extinguished quickly, and the staff behind the counters were able to evacuate the premises without any physical harm.  It is not suggested that the offices were crowded at the time with members of the public.  There is no such evidence on the video.  There was damage to various items of equipment in the offices and to the structure of the office itself which has been valued at $140,000.  These are the circumstances of the offence to which you pleaded guilty. 

But of course there is more to it than that, because there is the background which has been discussed at some length in the papers and in the reports, and by counsel on your behalf.  That background is set out in your confession, which is supplemented by what you told the psychiatrist instructed on your behalf, and to a more limited degree what you said to the psychiatrist at Siu Lam during the last adjournment.  

You are a man in your 50s.  You have what is effectively a clear record.  I can ignore the 1980 matter for something completely different.  You came to Hong Kong in 1978.  You commenced working in the laundry industry, and you have been involved in that business ever since, both on ships and on land.  You opened your own premises in 2003 in Tsuen Wan. 

You say you became involved in a dispute with the Business Registration Office of the Inland Revenue Department.  You maintain that you have been victimised by that department which has taken your money.  Of course I am not going to determine the merits of that matter, which appears to be based substantially on delusions.  But it is right to deal with you for this offence on the basis that you believed you had a legitimate grievance with the Business Registration Office, and it was that belief which drove you to commit this offence. 

I have received testimonials from your wife, your former employer, your fellow traders in the Heung Shing Street area, and they all speak of your hard work and your dedication to your business, and your generally positive community attitude.  Those comments are consistent with the tenor of the evidence in the case and the psychiatric reports which I have received. 

The first psychiatric report was prepared on your behalf prior to plea by Dr Chan Kwok-tung, and it sets out your social background in great detail and concludes that you were acutely depressed by your beliefs of a government-inspired vendetta against you, and that your beliefs were delusional, but that you were not suffering from any mental disorder at the time.  Dr Chan concludes, for reasons given in his supplementary report, that you are unlikely to re-offend in a similar manner.  

The more recent psychiatric report from Siu Lam, which is short in nature, describes you as being someone who does not suffer from any formal psychiatric disorder.  It appears, according to the psychiatrist in that report, that you were shocked or significantly distressed at the time that you committed this offence.  The important thing, perhaps, to draw from these reports at this point, is to note that there are no grounds to believe that you remain a continuing danger to the public. 

In the end it comes to this.  You are a hard working man of good character who has developed a grudge against a government department, which clearly had a substantial impact on your emotional state.  You felt that you had no means of resolving your dispute.  Thus emotionally charged and as a reaction to what you regarded as an injustice, you made this considered decision to set fire to the office in Inland Revenue Tower.  The risk to life from such fire is plain.  Past tragedies in Hong Kong, including in recent memory in government offices and elsewhere, has shown that to be all too real.  It is extremely fortunate that no one was injured here, because your attack was not just superficial.  It was sustained.  It involved two seats of fire and the use of what you knew to be highly inflammable accelerants, which you used with some determination.  You knew that there would be people present, either staff or members of the public.    

Your depression and emotional dysfunction based on delusional beliefs, perhaps genuinely held, may be deserving of some sympathy.  But, of course, the courts must be mindful of the risks to others and to property caused by attacks such as this.  People with disputes must be deterred from acting with such violent disregard for human life and property. 

All these matters are to be considered when assessing the gravity of this particular case of arson and in determining where the starting point for sentence should be.  Your mitigation is your plea of guilty.  That demonstration of what I accept to be genuine remorse will result in a reduction of one-third on your sentence. 

In all the circumstances, I judge that the appropriate starting point before that discount for mitigation should be one of 6 years’ imprisonment.  The resulting sentence that I impose upon you is one of 4 years’ imprisonment.  You can be seated.

In reaching that sentence I have had regard to previous decisions of the courts to which I have been referred.  There are cases which are more serious than this and some which may be less serious, some not charged as the aggravated form of arson as here.  I will list those cases in a moment because they do give some general guidance. 

But I should stress that in reaching the starting point in this case I have had to take into account the careful and deliberate attack, the substantial and sustained nature of the attack, the anticipation that there would be others present at the premises who would be put at risk, together on the other side of the coin with the fact that the accused was suffering under some delusion about the behaviour of this government department and was depressed at the time. 

The cases to which I have particular regard, it is always useful just to list them: R v Li Mun Tong CACC309/1994; HKSAR v Lo Po Tak CACC608/1997; R v Mitchell, a decision of the English Court of Appeal, 4 September 1998; HKSAR v Chan Kam To CACC115/1997; and HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu CACC429/2007.