Read the full judgment text of CACC 000240/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 April 2003 before Yeung JA, Ma JA, Beeson J.
Criminal law – riot – arson – sentencing – appeal – identification evidence – reckless arson in penal institution – starting point – guilty plea discount – post-sentence commendatory conduct. Hei Ling Chau Drug Addiction Treatment Centre – large-scale riot and arson at dormitory 11 on 5-6 June 2000, involving over 100 local inmates attacking 13 Vietnamese inmates locked inside the dormitory; attacks using stones, poles, gasoline and LPG cylinders; 9 police, 29 CSD and 71 inmates injured, property damage over $10 million; incident quelled only with tear gas. Eight local inmates tried in two trials before Burrell J; A1 and A4 pleaded guilty to rioting but were convicted of arson; remaining applicants convicted of both charges. Whether A7's convictions were unsafe due to reliance on identification evidence of a single Vietnamese eyewitness, Nguyen, whose court testimony contained discrepancies with his prior witness statements – held, convictions safe; jury properly directed on dangers of unsupported identification evidence, minor discrepancies explained by chaotic nature of events. Whether starting point of 10 years' imprisonment for reckless arson committed during a serious prison riot was excessive, as suggested by English authorities on reckless arson in domestic premises – held, not excessive; sentences must reflect Hong Kong's particular circumstances as an over-crowded metropolitan city where arson is particularly hideous. Whether credit should be given for guilty plea to riot charge where applicant was convicted of arson after trial – held, A1 should receive six-month reduction on his total concurrent sentence; A4's existing one-year discount adequate. Whether post-sentence commendatory letter from Commissioner of Correctional Services for putting out a later fire at Stanley Prison should further reduce A1's sentence – held, no further discount; such conduct addressed through the Commissioner's commendation and award processes, not by retrospective sentence reduction. Outcome – A7's conviction appeal and all sentence appeals of A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 dismissed; A1's sentence reduced from 10 years to 9½ years concurrent. Starting point of 6 years for rioting and 9-10 years for arson (depending on whether applicant threw gasoline) upheld as appropriate for this unprecedented Hong Kong incident.
Legal issues: Sufficiency of identification evidence against A7 in riot and arson · Appropriate starting point for reckless arson committed during a prison riot · Discount for guilty plea to riot charge when convicted after trial on arson charge · Relevance of post-sentence rehabilitative conduct to sentencing discount
Outcome: A7's application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; applications for leave to appeal against sentence of A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 dismissed; A1's application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal allowed, total sentence reduced from 10 years to 9½ years (to run concurrently with the sentence on the rioting charge).
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases