HKSAR v. Wong Yiu Tung

DCCC 937/2025

[2026] HKDC 1805

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 937 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Charge

1.The Defendant is charged with one count of “Arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered”, contrary to ss 60(2) and (3) and 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

Facts

2.This was a large-scale fire incident.  The fire occurred in the vicinity of Cheung Pei Shan Road and Shek Kuk House (High Block), Shek Wai Kok Estate.  A noise barrier was constructed along Cheung Pei Shan Road and was about 10m away from Shek Kuk House (High Block).  There was also a footbridge outside Shek Kuk House (High Block).  Shortly before the fire broke out, CCTV captured the Defendant holding a red stick near the scene.  Soon after, smoke and fire were seen at the bushes near the noise barrier.  The fire then spread to the noise barrier, which was located about 1.5m away from the burning bushes.  The Defendant was seen lingering on the footbridge for several minutes before leaving.

3.PW1 witnessed the fire and reported it to the police.  Upon arrival, the firemen extinguished the fire in about 17 minutes and found the cause of the fire to be suspicious.

4.A section of the noise barrier of about 40m x 18m was severely damaged by the fire, and a section of the bottom of the footbridge of about 40m x 3m was blackened by heat or smoke.  Some miscellaneous articles were also damaged by fire.  An aged woman felt unwell as a result of the incident and required assistance from the ambulance.  The Fire Services Department spent a total of 83.03 man-hours to handle the incident.

5.No accelerant or ignitable liquid residue was found at the scene.

6.The relevant section of Cheung Pei Shan Road had to be closed for 17 hours after the fire for repairs, with the total repair cost amounting to HK$9,591,171.22.

7.One day after the incident, the Defendant was arrested, and the police seized 3 lighters and a cutter from him.

Mitigation

8.The Defendant is now 76 years old and of a clear record.  He is married with 1 son and 2 daughters.  He lives with his family in Tsuen Wan.  He never received formal education in Hong Kong.  He retired in 2011 and is suffering from various health issues, including hearing impairment.

9.The Defence cites Secretary for Justice v SWS [2021] 1 HKLRD 1136 and Chau Yuk Kuen v R CACC 402/1980 and submits that the sentence for arson is in the range of 4 to 5 years in general.  The Defence also refers to HKSAR v Law Chun Man [2012] 4 HKLRD 320 for factors relevant to sentencing.  The Defence relies on the sentence in HKSAR v Kung Pak Fu [2008] 2 HKCLRT 240 and HKSAR v Ching Kam Pui (transliteration)[1] CACC 269/2022 for the Court’s reference.

10.The Defence explains that, at the material time, the Defendant passed by the scene and wanted to clear the miscellaneous items which he thought would hinder the growth of plants nearby.  As a result, he lit up the items with a lighter without noticing the presence of flammables therein.  The fire grew unexpectedly and he left the scene out of fear.

11.The psychiatric and psychological reports indicate that the Defendant does not suffer from any mental or psychological illness.

12.The Defendant expresses genuine remorse, he asks the Court to consider his advanced age and good character.  There was no premeditation or ulterior motive, nor significant casualties or fatalities.  The Defendant’s daughter has written a letter mitigating for the Defendant.  However, the Defendant has no financial means to make compensation.

Sentence

13.Arson is an extremely serious offence.  Pursuant to s63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, the maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.  The charge in the present case is brought under s60(2) of the Crimes Ordinance, and the offence committed by the Defendant is being reckless as to whether endangering the lives of another.  The consequences of a fire are extremely difficult to foresee, and once a fire spreads out of control, it will lead to exceptionally grave consequences.  The present case serves as a clear illustration of the consequences that result when a fire burns out of control.

14.In SWS, the Court of Appeal has pointed out that “arson is an offence of particular severity.  This is because Hong Kong is a densely populated city where the living and working environments are relatively crowded.  An occurrence of fire often causes extremely grave consequences, possibly resulting in serious injuries or losses of properties.  The offence of arson aims at heavily combating deliberate acts of arson, preventing the public from being harmed by such acts.  Out of considerations of the public interest, the court must impose a heavy sentence for the offence of arson so as to protect the public, mete out penalties to and openly condemn the offenders, as well as to deter the offenders and others who intended to commit the crime from doing so; otherwise the lives and properties of the public will be under serious threat.  Therefore, it has been the practice of the court to impose immediate imprisonment on offenders of arson.” [2]

15.The Court of Appeal does not lay down any sentencing guidelines for this offence because its gravity differs from case to case.  Generally, the sentence for an offence of arson is in the range of 4 to 5 years of imprisonment. Nevertheless, the actual term depends on the gravity of each case.[3]

16.In Law Chun Man, the Court of Appeal has pointed out that in determining the sentence, the Court must take into account the offender’s motivation, whether he committed the offence under emotional distress due to a domestic situation, or to exact revenge or intimidate.  In addition, the Court needs to consider the actual damage done to property and the actual injury caused to any person, as well as the potential damage to property and harm to persons, including risks that might have been posed to the lives of those who responded to emergencies, namely the police and Fire Services officers.  The Court must also consider whether the arson was an isolated incident, or part of a wider campaign.[4]

17.In Kung Pak Fu, the main injured party was the Appellant himself, and his daughter suffered relatively minor injuries.  In contrast, while the Defendant did not suffer any injury, the arson in the present case resulted in massive damage to public property.  Further, in Ching Kam Pui, the Appellant’s conduct was found to be influenced by his medical condition, making it a case of exceptional nature.  The Defendant has no known mental issues in this case. The circumstances in the 2 cases cited by the Defence are different from the present case.

18.The Defence suggests that the Defendant committed the offence simply to clear up the pile of garbage.  The psychiatric and psychological reports provide a more in-depth explanation for the Defendant’s behaviour, indicating that he was in emotional distress due to issues with his wife right before the material incident occurred.  It appears that his problem of marital discord had already persisted for quite some time since his hearing loss. 

19.In any case, I accept that the offence was not motivated by revenge or any desire to intimidate.  It is reasonably possible that the Defendant acted out of impulsiveness due to his emotional distress and frustration at the time.  The psychological report concludes that the Defendant appeared to pose a low risk for violent re-offending.  I accept that the Defendant committed the offence without any premeditation, and it was an isolated incident.

20.The Defendant set some miscellaneous articles on fire with the lighter he carried without the use of any accelerant or ignitable device.

21.Notwithstanding the above, the fire in the present case was particularly serious and the property loss caused was exceptionally severe.  The Fire Services Department deployed substantial resources to extinguish the fire and spent a total of 83.03 man-hours on the incident.  An extensive section of the noise barrier and the bottom of the footbridge at the scene were damaged by the fire.  The relevant section of the road had to be closed for 17 hours for repairs.  The photographs of the scene produced by the Prosecution show that the affected noise barrier was almost completely destroyed.  The incident resulted in a substantial economic loss amounting to over HK$9.5 million.  The Defendant further indicates that he has no financial means to make compensation, this results in actual financial loss to the Government and public resources.  An aged woman required ambulance assistance due to the incident, although there is no evidence suggesting that she suffered any serious injury.

22.The potential harm to residents nearby was also very high.  The seat of the fire was only 10-odd meters away from Shek Kuk House (High Block).  The photographs of the scene show that the noise barrier affected by the fire was very close to Shek Kuk House (High Block).  Had the fire spread to the residential premises which were merely 10m away, it would have brought catastrophic consequences to the residents there.  The fire posed a grave potential threat to the safety of the residents.

23.The Defendant is currently 76 years old with a clear record.  Credit should be accorded for the fact that until relatively late in life, the Defendant was a hard-working family man who had committed no criminal offences and had made some positive contribution to society.

24.The Defendant surrendered himself to the police at the scene on the day following the incident.  This demonstrates genuine remorse on his part, and his act of surrendering is likewise worthy of encouragement.

25.In light of the above, I consider a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment appropriate and just.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced by 1/3 to 40 months.  A reduction of 8 months’ is given in recognition of the Defendant’s unblemished record for most of his life, and a further discount of 2 months’ for his surrender to the police.

26.The Defendant is sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.