HKSAR v. Lau Yee Kit

DCCC 663/2026

[2026] HKDC 1851

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 663 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges

1.The Charge Sheet has a total of 8 charges of Arson.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 3, 6 & 8.  The remaining 3 charges, namely, Charges 4, 5 & 7 are ordered to be left in court file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of court.

The Summary of Facts

2.The facts are straightforward.  Sometime before and at about 5 am on 17 August 2025, the Defendant used a lighter to set fire to miscellaneous items at five different locations in Tai Po, New Territories:

Charge	Thing Destroyed/Damaged	Location
Charge 1	A trolly and some cardboard	Outside No 9 On Fu Road
Charge 2	Some cardboard	Outside Nos 3-5 Fu Shin Street
Charge 3	A cardboard box	Outside No 22 Fu Shin Street
Charge 6	Some garbage bags	At the back alley of Nos 16-22, Fu Shin Street
Charge 8	Canvas	At the back alley of Nos 15-18, On Fu Road

3.These incidents all took place at On Fu Road and Fu Shin Street, two neighbouring roads in Tai Po.  The Defendant used the lighter flame to ignite those miscellaneous items and then ran away.  The matter was observed by a passer-by, who made a report to police.  On the arrival of the officers, the Defendant was intercepted and arrested in the vicinity.

4.Under caution, the Defendant made full confession to his crime, including:

(a)  he had relationship issue and had some beer in a bar before the offences;

(b)  he was in a bad mood and chose to release his negative emotion through setting fire to things;

(c)  he had discarded his ligther; and

(d)  he forgot how many places he had set fire to.

5.The Defendant brought the police officers back to the foregoing five locations where he had set fire to various things.

Mitigation

6.The Defendant is now 22, 21 at the time of these offences.  He has secondary three education.  Prior to his arrest, he was a construction site worker, earning around HK$25,000 per month.  He was then residing with his parents.  In his letter, the Defendant stated he was deeply remorseful.

7.The defendant has 2 previous conviction: Possession of dangerous drugs in 2020 and gambling in a gambling establishment in 2025.

8.On the day of these offences, the Defendant, having just broken up with his girlfriend, went to a bar at Fu Shin Street, Tai Po and had some beer.  He left at around midnight and wandered aimlessly in the vicinity.  He saw some cartons and foam boards at a back alley.  Believing it would make him feel better, he set fire to those garbage and cartons along the streets when walking home.  He had no grudge with any nearby shopkeepers, nor any intent to harm any person.

9.In his Written Submissions, Mr Hugo Chan, on behalf of the Defendant, has made reference to several appellate authorities, as well as one District Court decision, on the offence of arson.  Mr Chan invites this court to consider, amongst others, the following matters:

(1)  These offences were not motivated by revenge or intimidation. The Defendant committed these crimes merely out of his impulsiveness, exacerbated by his recent relationship issues and the consumption of alcohol.

(2)  No one was injured and the damage to property was minimal. The fire was naturally extinguished shortly at the spot without firemen’s intervention.

(3)  The fire was lit up solely by a lighter without any accelerant or incendiary device.

10.Whilst acknowledging the seriousness of these offences, Mr Chan invites the court to adopt a starting point of 2 years for each offence; and in light of the close proximity in time and place, to order those terms be served concurrently.

Analysis

11.No doubt arson is a very serious offence, but the facts vary through a wide spectrum from, as an example near one end, to exact revenge by setting fire to multi-storey residential building with intent to endanger life to, also an example near the other end, setting fire to some garbage solely to vent one’s anger without causing any severe damage to property or injuries to people. (see eg HKSAR v Tse Chun Kit CACC 86/2020, unreported).

12.In consideration of the proper sentence for arson, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Law Chun Man [2012] 4 HKLRD 320 referred to a number of relevant factors, including:

- motivation of the offender;

- actual damage done to property and actual injury caused to any person;

- potential damage to property and potential harm to person;

- consequence of the arson (eg risks posed to others, including those who respond to emergencies ie police, firemen, etc);

- whether it was an isolated incident or part of a wider campaign.

13.I have looked at the photographs depicting the crime scenes.  It is fair to say that the locations where the miscellaneous items were burned were at a short distance from the neighbouring shops/stalls.  While I accept Mr Chan’s submissions regarding the nature and the consequence of the Defendant’s crimes in the instant case, I cannot disregard the potential damage to property and risk to human lives.

14.The facts in HKSAR v Li Lin Shum (also known as Li Sum), CACC 82/2015, unreported, are fairly similar to the present case.  There the applicant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of arson.  He set fire to miscellaneous items at back alleys on two separate days.  The learned sentencing judge adopted 2 years as the starting point and reduced it to 16 months for the plea of guilty.  He then ordered 6 months to run consecutively to the other term, making an overall sentence of 22 months.

15.The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the leave application, reiterated the serious nature of the offence of arson:

“Arson, because of the inherent danger in any uncontrolled fire, is always regarded as an offence of particular gravity. Arsonists exhibit reckless disregard for life and property.” (referring to R v Li Mun Tong CACC 309/1994, unreported)

16.As regards the overall sentence of 22 months, Macrae JA (as Macrae VP then was)  also remarked:

“10. The judge conducted a very thorough examination of the relevant authorities and determined, in view of the repetition of the second offence seven weeks after the first, that there should be a consecutive element as between the two offences. I cannot at this stage see any arguable grounds for appeal against sentence. Indeed, given the need for the courts to deter likeminded people from committing similar conduct in vulnerable public places, it may be that the applicant could not have complained if his sentence had been even longer.”

Sentence

17.I will adopt 24 months as the starting point for charges 1, 2, 3, 6 & 8. Having deducted one third to reflect the plea of guilty, the sentence of each charge is 16 months of imprisonment.  Whilst these five offences took place within a brief period of time on the same day, they involved setting fire to miscellaneous items at five different locations. I do not see it proper to order wholly concurrent sentences.

18.Viewed globally, I think an overall term of 24 months of imprisonment is a proper and just sentence, capable of fully reflecting all the relevant circumstances of this case and the defendant.  To achieve that, I order that 2 months out of the terms in Charge 2, Charge 3, Charge 6 & Charge 8 are to run consecutively to each other, and also to run consecutively to Charge 1, making a total term of 24 months of imprisonment.

19.The Defendant will serve a total term of 24 months of imprisonment.