The Queen v. Chau Kai-kwong

CACC000503/1996

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

Coram: Bokhary, Mortimer and Mayo JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 22 January 1997

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

On 12 August 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of arson in front of Saied J. Those offences related to two huts, one he lived in and the other was occupied by his landlords, Madam Lau and her husband. The judge sentenced him to 5 years on the 1st count and 2 years concurrent on the 2nd count. He applies for leave to appeal against sentence.

The facts

2. The two huts, 48A and 48B are in a village near Sai Kung and were owned by Madam Lau and her husband. The applicant had been Madam Lau's tenant of 48B for many years. They knew each other well because they had both been fellow employees at the film studios. However, in about 1992 there were serious disputes between them about the rent. The result was a hearing in the Lands Tribunal and the landlords, husband and wife, determined to evict the applicant. The dispute made the applicant extremely angry.

3. Although it can be said that he was not acting in character, there are clear indications that he planned to do some harm because during September 1995 he purchased eight bottles of paint thinner.

4. Things came ahead on 18 October. In the early morning, the applicant barred the door of his landlady's hut and placed newspapers soaked in olive oil and the paint thinner into a room in her hut. The smell woke her. When she looked out she saw the applicant lighting newspapers and throwing them into her room. She vainly pleaded with him to stop, but a fierce fire broke out. She tried to escape but the door was barred. Fortunately, neighbours were alerted by her cries for help and they rescued her by pulling her out through a window.

5. Meanwhile the applicant had returned to his hut and he set fire to that also, in an attempt to commit suicide.

6. Both Madam Lau and the applicant suffered injuries. Fortunately they were inhalation injuries and were not permanent.

7. After his arrest, he explained that he had done this because Madam Lau attempted to evict him by cutting his electricity. He denied intending to harm her, saying he wanted only to scare her. He said that the wooden pole was only loosely placed against the door. The fact that it was placed there at all, however, is extremely significant. It is clear that he had become disturbed before the offence. He had been writing letters to prominent people in the territory, also to the police and to the newspapers - about his predicament.

8. In mitigation, it was said that although he was a lonely and isolated man, he allowed his emotions to get the better of him and committed the offences. He said that he was very remorseful. He was examined and there was no psychiatric abnormality.

The sentence

9. The judge assessed the sentence with considerable care. These are, of courses, offences of great seriousness - involving obvious danger to life. The judge started at 9 years as an overall sentence and reduced that for the pleas of guilty and for other mitigating circumstances, to 5 years. For offences of this seriousness, that as an overall sentence for these offences, it is completely justified, in spite of the mitigation matters before the court.

10. There are no grounds upon which this Court can properly interfere with those sentences. The application is refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr F. Veltro (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent