HKSAR v. Dhakal Bibek

DCCC 825/2025

[2026] HKDC 861

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 825 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.The Defendant faced 3 charges, namely:

(1)  Arson, contrary to sections 60(1)  and (3)  and 63(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (Charge 1);

(2)  Attempted arson, contrary to sections 60(1)  and (3), 63(1), 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (Charge 2); and

(3)  Arson, contrary to sections 60(1)  and (3)  and 63(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (Charge 3).

2.He pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 3 and was so convicted. Upon application by the Prosecution, I ordered Charge 2 be left on court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

3.The Defendant was a transit passenger travelling from Canada to Nepal via Hong Kong International Airport (“HKIA”).  However, he had missed the scheduled flight to Nepal and remained at the airside of HKIA at the material time.

4.At about 1846 hours on 18 March 2025, a passer-by informed Madam Wong, staff of “ZARA” (Shop 1), a clothing store located at Shop K, Level 6 (Airside), Terminal 1 of HKIA that some clothes were on fire.

5.Madam Wong found that four sweaters on a rack in the men’s department were on fire (each valued at HK$399, totalling HK$1,596).  A customer helped to place the four burning sweaters on the ground and the flames were extinguished. Besides, the sleeves of three blazers (each valued at HK$499, totalling HK$1,497)  in the women’s department had also been burnt.

Charge 3

6.At about 1847 hours on the same day, Madam Lam staff of “All Star” (Shop 2), a sports attire store located at Shop 6T509, Level 6 (Airside), Terminal 1 of HKIA (adjacent to Shop 1) greeted the Defendant. The Defendant said that he did not need her assistance hence she returned to the cash register area. 

7.About a minute after the Defendant left, at about 1849 hours on the same day, a passer-by informed Madam Lam that the curtain at the fitting room (valued at about HK$1,000)  was on fire and she quickly extinguished the flames.

CCTV Footages

8.CCTV at the HKIA captured the Defendant entering and exiting Shop 1 and 2 respectively on the day.

Arrest and Caution

9.After the fire alarms at Shops 1 and 2 sounded, airport security personnel started to investigate and trace the live CCTV to locate the Defendant. The incident was also reported to the police.

10.The Defendant was subsequently intercepted by the police at Gate 43, Level 6 (Airside), Terminal 1, HKIA, and a grey lighter of “BIC” brand was seized from his left pants pocket. 

11.The Defendant was arrested for the offence of “Arson” and, under caution in Punti, the Defendant did not respond.

12.In a subsequent video-recorded interview conducted in the presence of Nepalese and English interpreters, the Defendant admitted the offences under caution and stated, inter alia, the following:-

(1)  He was a transit passenger having arrived at HKIA from Vancouver, Canada on 18 March 2025. He missed his flight to Nepal as he did not pay attention to the time while shopping around;

(2)  He admitted to have entered “ZARA” (Shop 1)  and used the lighter found on him to ignite clothing as he wanted to do so;

(3)  He admitted to have entered “All Star” (Shop 2); and

(4)  Upon entering the fitting room of Shop 2, he used the lighter to ignite the curtain.

Background and Personal Circumstances

13.The Defendant is a 23 years old Nepalese national with a clear record in Hong Kong. He is single and resides in Nepal with his parents and younger brother.

14.He was studying a Bachelors in Business Administration Degree (BBA)  at Yorkville University in Canada before he arrived in Hong Kong as a transit passenger.

Mitigation

15.Counsel for the Defendant explained that the Defendant’s family had a business concerned the running of a school in Nepal. A dispute arose between his father and uncle which would jeopardise his future right to run the school. With a view to resolve the matter, he left his study in Canada and travelled home urgently. Counsel said the matter had caused the Defendant considerable emotional distress and anger, which was exacerbated by the missing of the connecting flight to Nepal on that day.

16.Counsel said the Defendant had been remanded in custody since his arrest and he wished to return to Nepal to resolve the family dispute as soon as possible. He also wanted to continue his studies thereafter.

Sentencing Considerations

17.The maximum sentence for arson is that of life imprisonment. There is no sentencing guideline for the offence and the present charges were laid under s60(1), instead of the more serious one under s60(2)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

18.With a view to assist the Court, Counsel for the Defendant referred to a number of authorities including the case of HKSAR v Law Chun Man [2012] 4 HKLRD 320. In the case, the Court of Appeal discussed factors that should be considered in sentencing for the offence.  These include the motivation of the offender, the actual damage done to property, the potential damage to property and harm to person, whether it was an isolated incident or part of a wider campaign.

19.I have carefully considered the facts of the present case and agree with the following extenuating circumstances submitted by Counsel for the Defendant, in particular, that:-

(a)  The offences were not motivated by revenge or any desire to intimidate. The Defendant merely acted out of impulsiveness due to his emotional distress and frustration at the time.

(b)  The damage to property, namely, the clothing and curtain burnt cost a total of HK$4,093, which appears to be on the lower side of the scale. No one was injured.

(c)  The incidents took place inside shop premises at HKIA during business hours, as opposed to setting things on fire in a crowded residential area during the small hours of the day. In other words, the potential damage to property and harm to person was relatively low.

(d)  The flames were detected and put out on the spot by staff and customer without the intervention of the Fire Services Department.

(e)  The Defendant acted alone and he merely set the clothing and curtain on fire with the lighter that he carried without the use of any accelerant or incendiary devices.

20.All in all, I accept that the Defendant committed the present offences without any planning or pre-meditation, and it was an isolated incident. I also take into account the Defendant’s offer to compensate the shops in question, which further demonstrates his remorse.

21.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, mitigation and the fact that the Defendant was a transit passenger with a clear record, I take 2½ years’ imprisonment ie, 30 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of Charges 1 and 3.  Given the timely plea of the Defendant, I reduce the sentences to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

22.As Charges 1 and 3 took place just minutes apart on the same day and can be regarded as a single course of conduct, I ordered the sentences on Charges 1 and 3 to run concurrent to each other.

Sentence

23.The Defendant is sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment.