Chau Yuk Kuen v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 402/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 June 1980 before Li, J.A., Power & Barker, JJ..
Criminal law – arson – appeal against sentence – whether two years' imprisonment manifestly inadequate – appellant poured kerosene across front door of boyfriend's flat and set it alight – victim suffered 40-degree burns attempting to extinguish fire – 89-year-old mother of victim slightly injured while escaping – appellant acted after being humiliated and assaulted by victim who had another woman – appellant a widow of low intelligence suffering from mild mental deficiency caused by childhood meningitis – difficulty controlling emotions – guilty plea at earliest opportunity – tariff sentence for this type of arson at least four to five years – trial judge imposed lenient two-year sentence after expressly weighing mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental condition, and provocation – Court of Appeal found trial judge had given proper consideration and allowances for all mitigating circumstances – length of imprisonment reflected his approach – no justification to interfere – application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal issues: Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment for arson was manifestly inadequate and warranted interference on appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Cited by 56 cases
|
CACC000402/1980
----------------- Coram: Li, J.A., Power & Barker, JJ. Date of Judgment: 19th June, 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Li, J.A.: 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted of the offence of arson. The allegation was that she poured some kerosene across the front door of her boy friend's flat and set it alight. The end result was that her boy friend, in an attempt to put out the fire, suffered very severe burns 40 degree burns. His aged mother, who is 89, tripped while she tried to escape and hurt herself only slightly. This, on the fact of it, is a very serious offence. But there are extensive mitigating factors. 2. The appellant and the victim were friendly at one stage. The appellant was a widow whose husband died when she was in her early twenties. She tried very hard to bring up her children. She was allocated certain housing assistance, she lived in the same block of flats as the victim. They became friendly and their relationship may be described as intimate at one time. Then she found out that the victim had another woman. 3. On the day in question she went to the victim's flat and found the other woman there. In the course of an argument she was humiliated and assaulted. She suffered from abrasions and bruises on her face and on her arms. She was infuriated. She ran home and grabbed a can of kerosene, poured it across the front door of the victim's flat and set it alight. That was not all. The appellant had a rather unhappy childhood in the sense she did not enjoy the best of health. She had measles which subsequently developed into meningitis as a result of which her brain was damaged. Two psychiatric reports have been called for. Both doctors found that she is a person of low intelligence and had difficulty to control her emotions from time to time. She had been described by one doctor as suffering from a mild grade of mental deficiency. When she was charged she pleaded guilty. However, all such mitigating circumstances had been taken into consideration by the learned trial judge. I agree with the judge when he said "arson is the type of offence which she did was an irresponsible and a most dangerous act". Her act injured not only the victim, her ex boy friend, but also endangered the lives of all the occupants of that block of flats. It is a very serious offence indeed. In his reasons for sentence the trial judge said:
It was in such circumstances that the 'learned trial judge imposed a lenient sentence of two years imprisonment. We feel that the tariff sentence for this type of appeal should be at least 4 to 5 years. The length of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge rightly reflected his approach. He gave consideration and allowances for all the mitigating circumstances including the appellant's mental condition. For this reason we do not feel that we are justified in interfering with the sentence and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused. Representation: B. D'Almada (Legal Aid) for appellant. Miss Ida Cheung for the Crown/Respondent. |
Other judgments that cite this case