HKSAR v. Law Fu Wing

DCCC 84/2025

[2025] HKDC 1656

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 84 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges and Plea

1.The Defendant faces three charges. Following plea bargaining, he has pleaded guilty to two charges as follows:

(1)  Charge 2: Conspiracy to commit arson, contrary to sections 60(1)  and (3), 63(1), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The Particulars of Charge allege that on or about the 26^th day of October, 2022, in Hong Kong, conspired together with Yeung Chun Sing, without lawful excuse, to destroy or damage by fire one private car bearing registration mark TB7934, property belonging to XXX, intending to destroy or damage such property, or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged.

(2)  Charge 3: Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1)  and (3)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). The Particulars of Charge allege that on the 3^rd day of August, 2023, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as should have been appointed by a court.

Facts Relevant to Charge 2 — Conspiracy to Commit Arson

2.The Defendant was involved in a traffic accident on 25 October 2022 with a vehicle driven by PW1. Although the matter was settled after the Defendant paid HK$25,000 to compensate for the damage, he remained resentful towards PW1.

3.On the following night, 26 October 2022, the vehicle belonging to PW1’s father (PW2)  and another adjacent car were found on fire in the car park of Tin Shing Court, Tin Shui Wai. The fire damaged both vehicles.  The repair cost for PW2’s car was HK$35,000.  The repair cost for the adjacent car was HK$39,977. The Defendant had paid HK$25,000 to PW1 as compensation before the present hearing.  At the present hearing I am told that the Defendant has already transferred HK$49,977 into his instructing solicitors’ account ready to be paid out through the court to PW2 for HK$10,000 and PW4, the owner of the adjacent car, for HK$39,977.  I now make an order as compensation to PW2 and PW4 accordingly.

4.Police investigations revealed the use of flammable liquid containing heptane, cyclohexane and methyl cyclohexane, substances commonly found in paint thinners. A burnt metal can, gloves and cotton waste were recovered near the scene. CCTV footage showed a person (later identified as Yeung Chun Sing, the co-conspirator)  entering the car park at 9:40 p.m., setting fire to the victim’s vehicle, injuring himself in the process, and then fleeing.

5.The Defendant was later arrested. He admitted that, due to the grudge arising from the earlier accident, he had conspired with Yeung Chun Sing and instructed him to set fire to the victim’s vehicle. The Defendant did not personally attend the scene but was the instigator of the offence.

Facts Relevant to Charge 3 — Failing to Surrender to Lawful Custody

6.The Defendant was granted bail pending proceedings. He was due to appear before the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court on 3 August 2023 but failed to do so. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

7.He remained at large for approximately 13 months until 3 September 2024, he was re-arrested.

8.The Defendant later admitted that he failed to surrender because he wished to stay with his wife, who had just become pregnant with their first child.

The Defendant’s Background

9.The Defendant is 32 years old, born in Hong Kong, educated up to Secondary level 3. He is married with a 10-year-old daughter from a previous marriage and a 1-year-old son with his current wife. He was working as a part-time van driver earning around HK$15,000 a month and was the sole breadwinner and main caregiver for his elderly mother.

10.He has 10 previous convictions, but none similar to the present offences. His counsel submits that the present offences were committed out of impulsive resentment rather than long-term criminal inclination.

11.He has spent over 14 months in remand and has reflected deeply during this period. He expresses remorse and wishes to reform for the sake of his family. Six letters from his wife, daughter, mother, and sisters have been tendered in support.

Sentencing Principles — Conspiracy to Commit Arson (Charge 2)

12.Arson is a grave and inherently dangerous offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu [2008] 2 HKCLRT 235 emphasises that, in densely populated Hong Kong, intentional fires—even those resulting only in property damage—carry potential for catastrophic harm. Heavy sentences are required for deterrence.

13.Sentencing must, however, reflect the degree of risk, the extent of planning, and the motive behind the act. In this case, the arson was motivated by personal revenge arising from a traffic dispute. It was carried out by an accomplice instructed by the Defendant, using an accelerant in a public car park, which also caused damage to an adjacent car.

14.Fortunately, the fire was contained quickly and caused no personal injury. The plan was unsophisticated, and the accomplice suffered self-inflicted burns. There is no evidence of triad involvement or financial motive.

15.Counsel refers to HKSAR v Yeung Chun Sing 揚振昇 [2023] HKDC 1845, arising from the same incident, in which the actual perpetrator received 20 months’ imprisonment after discount. In that case, the starting point was 33 months, reduced to 20 months for plea and mitigation.

16.Reference is also made to HKSAR v Leung Man Chun (D3)  [2022] HKDC 978, where the third defendant, who organised others to commit a similar arson involving two cars, received a starting point of 3 years 3 months for conspiracy to commit arson. That case was aggravated by profit motive, the use of youth accomplices, and greater damage.

17.The prosecution’s submission, upon referring to a line of decisions by the Court of Appeal[1])  decisions as stated in its letter dated 9 October 2025 to this Court, is that the sentencing decisions at first instance are neither binding on, nor of any referential value for, courts of the same level.  I agree that this legal position is abundantly clear.

18.I take into account that the Defendant’s act was impulsive in nature. His role as instigator suggests that he had had more time to calm down but instead elected to ventilate his anger.  I take a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment. 

Mitigating Factors

19.The Defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, saving court time and public expense. He has fully compensated PW2 and PW4 for the repair of their vehicles.  There are supportive letters from family members showing strong prospects for rehabilitation.

20.I accept that this was not a triad-related or financially motivated act, but rather one of personal revenge and poor judgment. The damage was limited to property.

21.A one-third discount is therefore appropriate for his plea and genuine remorse.  The sentence for Charge 2 is reduced from 36 months to 24 months. Further, I give 3 months’ reduction due to his full compensation.  The sentence is 21 months.

Sentencing Principles — Failing to Surrender to Custody (Charge 3)

22.The maximum penalty under section 9L(3)  of Cap. 221 is 12 months’ imprisonment. Although there are no specific guidelines, courts have consistently treated bail jumping as a serious breach of trust that undermines the integrity of the criminal process (HKSAR v Lee Man Chun [2022] HKDC 978).

23.In the present case, the Defendant absconded for 13 months during the mention stage. His stated reason was to stay with his pregnant wife and support her until childbirth.

24.I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. Applying a one-third discount for his plea, the sentence is reduced to 4 months.

Totality

25.Applying the totality principle, the Court must ensure that the combined sentence is proportionate to the Defendant’s overall criminality. The two offences are distinct in nature but temporally and contextually connected within the same course of conduct.  Where a separate charge of absconding is brought, the sentence should generally be made consecutive to the sentence for the substantive offence unless a very long sentence is imposed for the substantial offence itself, usually calculated in terms of years (HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai 盧錦輝 [2016] HKCA 94).

26.I order that the 4 months on Charge 3 shall run consecutively to the 21 months on Charge 2.  The total sentence is 25 months’ imprisonment.