HKSAR v. Chan Chi Cheung

DCCC82/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 82 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of arson, contrary to section 60(1) and (3), and section 63(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, Laws of Hong Kong, the offences occurring at the same place, namely the rear lane of Wai Yuen Mansion, No. 341-343 Queen’s Road West, on 11 December, 14 December and 15 December 2010 respectively.

2.On each occasion you set fire to a rubbish collection bin belonging to the Hong Kong Government. Each of the offences occurred in the early hours of the morning, between 5 and 6 am. You were intercepted on 15 December 2010 when the police laid ambush and saw you setting light to some toilet paper and throwing it into the rubbish bin, resulting in the rubbish bin catching fire. You told police that you did this for fun and felt happy when you saw the rubbish on fire.

3.You are 39 years of age. You have had psychiatric problems in the past, and indeed have been made the subject of a hospital order in 1993 for offences of burglary and criminal damage. The psychiatric reports that are before this court indicate that you are a person who has a psychopathic personality disorder, but in the opinion of the two psychiatrists you are not at the present time suffering from any treatable psychiatric illness. As a consequence, in-patient treatment is not recommended.

4.You have, as must be said, an appalling criminal record. You have appeared, inter alia, in court on five separate occasions which relate to ten separate charges of arson. Arson, of course, is an extremely serious offence. The consequences of the commission of such offences are all too obvious, particularly in a small crowded place such as Hong Kong. However, the seriousness of cases of arson can differ quite dramatically, depending on the particular circumstances of the case.

5.It has been pointed out in mitigation, on your behalf, that in this case the fires that you started were very small scale. They were not perpetrated by yourself as a result of any personal grudge. Neither did you intend to injure anyone. I accept this.

6.I find also that the prospect of anyone being hurt as a result of your reckless actions being remote, the fires taking place in a rubbish bin in a back alley in the very early hours of the morning.

7.I propose to adopt a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment in relation to each of the charges. As I have said, you have an appalling criminal record which includes many previous convictions for arson. I consider this to be an aggravating feature which justifies an enhancement of the starting point by six months, to one of 2 years' imprisonment.

8.I will reduce this sentence of 2 years by one-third to reflect your plea of guilty, coming to a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment on each charge.

9.These offences were all committed very close in time to one another. Bearing in mind the question of totality of sentence, it seems to me that justice can be served by my ordering the sentences to run concurrently with one another, coming to a total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.