A A
HCCC 15/2024
[2024] HKCFI 2627
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2024
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Lam Chiu-lau
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon Barnes J H
Date: 5 September 2024 at 9.37 am
Present: Ms Rosa Lo, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
I Mr David W K Ma, instructed by S H Chan & Co, assigned I
by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: (1), (2) Arson (縱火) J
(3) Attempted murder (企圖謀殺)
(4) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊他人致造
K K
成身體傷害)
L L
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
M of the Sentence in the above Case M
---------------------------------
N N
COURT: Defendant, Lam Chiu-lau, pleaded guilty before a magistrate
on the following four charges and was committed to the Court
O of First Instance of the High Court for sentence. The 1st O
and the 2nd counts are arson, contrary to Section 60(1) and
(3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. The 3rd count is
P P
attempted murder, contrary to Common Law and Sections 159G
and 159J(1)(a) of the same Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. And
Q the 4th count is assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Q
contrary to Common Law and punishable under Section 39 of the
Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212.
R R
Now, the admitted facts, that means the facts that you have
admitted in the Magistracy. All right, defendant, at the
S S
time you were 81 years old. And there was Au Lin, he was
aged 73. And then there was a Chan Wing-kau, he was aged 78.
T All males, right. You were all living in an elderly home in T
Sham Shui Po. The defendant, at that time, occupied Bed A16,
and Mr Au occupied Bed A18. They were close to each other,
U with A17 in between. And the bed of Mr Chan was A19, and U
then Bed 20, they were across the corridor.
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 1 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Defendant, you had a grudge with Mr Au prior to the incident
B because Mr Au always shouted for no reason. The Mr Au had B
suffered from a stroke, and as a result, and at all material
times, he could not move his left hand and left leg. And he
C was bedridden. C
D
So on 10 January 2023 at 1210 hours, that means noon time, D
defendant you suddenly burnt your own bed, that is A16,
causing damage to the mattress which is 50 centimetres x 40
E centimetres was damaged. The bedsheet was damaged. The size E
was 30 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And also a window
curtain nearby was damaged. The size was 50 centimetres x 40
F centimetres. So that’s the subject of the 1st count, arson. F
G A forensic scientist subsequently found traces of light G
petroleum distillate, a highly flammable and common
constituent in lighter fluid, on the bedsheet of Bed A16,
H which was seized. H
Then, immediately after, the defendant you held a lighter and
I a burnt newspaper near Bed A20. That was on the other side I
of the corridor. You threw the burnt newspaper to Bed A20,
J on which no person was lying because the occupier of A20 J
happened to be visiting outside, so he wasn’t in bed. So Bed
A20 was burnt, and causing damage on the mattress the size of
K 50 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And the bedsheet was K
damaged, 10 centimetres x 10 centimetres. And that’s the
subject of the 2nd count, arson.
L L
Again, the scientist found traces of light petroleum
M distillate, which is from the lighter and this bedsheet was M
seized.
N And then, defendant, you walked towards Bed A18 and threw N
another burnt newspaper to this bed. And Mr Au was lying on
A18. So this bed A18 was burnt, causing damage to the
O O
mattress, 50 centimetres x 10 centimetres damaged. The
bedsheet, 30 centimetres x 10 centimetres, was damaged. Also,
P the trousers of Mr Au was damaged as well. And Mr Au’s left P
thigh sustained injuries. So that’s the subject matter of
the 3rd count.
Q Q
Lastly, at the time Mr Chan was sleeping in Bed 19, and he
heard someone shouting for help. And he saw Bed A16 was on
R R
fire. So he shouted “extinguish the fire”. And then,
defendant, you punched the right side of his face twice. You
S intended to stop him from shouting. So that’s the subject S
matter of the 4th count.
T And then, Mr Chan subdued you on the ground and the case was T
reported to the police. And the fire was actually put out by
U
the automatic sprinkler installed at the elderly home. One U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 2 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
nursing staff and nine elderly residents were evacuated during
this incident.
B B
The police attended the scene and arrested you. And you
remained silent under caution. So the police officers seized
C two lighters, two bottles of rice wine, the window curtain, C
one bedsheet near bed A16, another two bedsheets and some
D
ashes were seized at Beds A18 and A20. CCTV capturing the D
whole incident was also seized.
E Mr Au and Mr Chan were both sent to the Caritas Medical Centre E
for medical treatment. So in relation to Mr Au, he sustained
burn of about 0.5 to 1 per cent, second degree burn, and a 4-
F centimetre diameter blister on his left thigh. Mr Au was F
discharged on 12 January 2023 as his condition was stable.
G In relation to Mr Chan, he sustained abrasion and tenderness G
on his right cheek, and he was discharged immediately after
checking.
H H
The defendant admitted that he burnt Bed A16 and Bed A20. At
the time when he admitted the 1st count and the 2nd count, he
I intended to damage the property particularised in the charge, I
or he was reckless as to whether such property would be
J damaged. And the defendant admitted that at all material J
times he had attempted to murder Mr Au in the course of
committing the 3rd count, during which he had intention to
K kill Mr Au. So those were the facts you have admitted. K
Now, the background and the mitigation. According to the
L L
antecedent statement, the defendant was born in January 1942.
So he is now 82 years of age, or 83. 82 years of age. The
M defendant, you, had a total of 12 previous convictions, M
including murder, wounding with intent, theft and gambling.
You were educated up to Form 3 level and was unemployed at
N the time of the arrest. N
Your counsel Mr David Ma provided further background
O O
information on you for my consideration. The defendant was
described as a loner with no relatives or friends. He was
P living on social welfare allowances, and was arranged by the P
authorities to live in the elderly home in question.
Q The defendant was convicted of murder at the age of 39, when Q
he killed his baby son. He also wounded his wife. And he
was sentenced to death, actually. But later it was commuted
R R
to life imprisonment, and which further later commuted to 37
years of imprisonment. And he has served a lengthy sentence
S for about 25 years. So when he was first released from S
prison, he committed offences of violence a few more times.
And so he was in and out of prison. His last conviction was
T wounding with intent, and he was sentenced to 3 years’ T
imprisonment in 2019.
U U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 3 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Mr Ma submitted that prior to the defendant’s conviction of
murder, he was working as a factory worker and construction
B worker. The protracted period of repeated incarceration had B
turned the defendant to be an unskilled and unsociable old
man. He was lonely and frustrated, vulnerable to his
C emotions, which further provoked his recourse to violence. C
The defendant himself has an insight that he is a threat to
D
the society and to himself if left to live his solitary life D
in open setting. The defendant is ashamed to ask for
leniency, and he asks this court to understand him. And it
E is his wish to spend the rest of his life in custody for the E
benefit of the society.
F Mr Ma referred to the case of Lo Man Kit, which quoted the F
case of Lee Wai Keung, and submitted there is no sentencing
G guideline for attempted murder, as the facts varied a great G
deal. He also referred this court to the cases of Kwan Chor
Leung and Lam Kam Loy, in which the courts remarked that arson
H is an offence of the utmost gravity, where the gravity depends H
on the facts of any particular case.
I In the present case, the defendant committed the attempted I
murder by means of arson. The defence accepted that there
J may be aggravating factors which may increase the sentence to J
be imposed. And these are the factors of this case. Some of
them may be aggravating factors.
K K
Now, the scene was an elderly home equipped with sprinkler
system, and the fire was set at noon time. Though it’s
L L
unclear how many inhabitants were there, but it’s reasonable
to assume that there were other people living there apart
M from Mr Au and Mr Chan. Mr Au was 73 years old and bedridden, M
and he suffered burns and a 4-centimetre blister on his left
thigh. And Mr Chan was assaulted when he was shouting for
N help. So the defendant was trying to stop Mr Chan’s effort N
to stop him, that is the defendant, perpetrating the crime.
And the defendant did not use any other inflammable accelerant
O O
other than the lighter and the burnt newspaper, which is
thrown on the bed of Mr Au. And there was no evidence of
P premeditation before he set fire to his own bed, and then the P
bed of Mr Au.
Q Mr Ma referred this court to the facts of the cases I have Q
mentioned, Lo Man Kit, Lam Kam Loy, Kwan Chor Leung and Liu
Suet Ha, and what sentences were passed by the court. And Mr
R R
Ma acknowledged that none of these authorities cited would be
readily applicable in the present case. However, these cases
S show how the court approached with delicacy the relevant S
matters. Mr Ma submitted that the fact that there were other
inhabitants, that Mr Au was bedridden and that the defendant
T assaulted Mr Chan, who tried to stop him, they were all T
aggravating factors. And Mr Ma submitted that a starting
U
point of 15 years may be appropriate in this case. U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 4 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
As for the two arson charges, Mr Ma submitted they should be
considered as the contemporaneous act perpetrated by the
B defendant in the context of the attempted murder. The damage B
to the properties were rather limited, though there was the
potential of impairment to the premises, to those residing at
C the elderly home and to the neighbourhood. Mr Ma asked this C
court to consider imposing concurrent sentences for these two
D
offences with the attempted murder. D
For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Mr
E Ma submitted that Mr Chan’s injury was minor. And to avoid E
double counting, Mr Ma also asked this court to order the
sentence of this offence to run concurrently with all others.
F F
Now, then this is my consideration for the sentence.
G G
Attempted murder and arson are both serious offences. As
submitted by Mr Ma and confirmed by the case law,
H circumstances for arson and, indeed, attempted murder vary H
greatly, so that the sentence to be imposed is fact sensitive.
Other cases do not really afford much assistance. As far as
I arson is concerned, at least with the presence of sprinklers I
and that the crime was committed in midday rendered it less
J serious when compared to cases such as Lo Man Kit. In that J
case the defendant set out an explosion in the kitchen after
threatening to rape the victim, and he also tried to suffocate
K the victim with a pillow. K
For the case of Lam Kam Loy, where the defendant in mid-life
L L
crisis set fire at night with thinner in his home where his
wife and daughter were also living, and he tried to stop them
M from leaving when the fire is spread. M
For the case of Kwan Chor Leung, the defendant was in high
N emotion and set fire to a warehouse in which people were N
living in the early hours of the morning, and he secured the
gates to stop the people from leaving.
O O
For the last case of Liu Suet Ha, the defendant set fire to
P the quilt covering her husband and spilled liquid, possibly P
thinner, on the husband’s right arm. So comparing to all
those cases, this one is less serious.
Q Q
Nevertheless, as considered by Mr Ma, there were aggravating
factors here. In particularly, the defendant attempted to
R R
kill Mr Au, who was bedridden, by setting fire to his bed.
The defendant is an old man, 82 years of age now. Yet he
S still remained a threat to the society. He held a grudge S
against Mr Au simply because Mr Au was making noise. And to
him, Mr Au was making noise with no reason. But we don’t
T know, if he was in pain, that’s why he made noises, but T
anyway, that was why he held a grudge against Mr Au. And the
U
defendant was easily provoked and reacted with such drastic U
and dangerous act, to set fire to the beds.
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 5 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
I accept, on the evidence, that it does appear the defendant
B was acting on the spur of the moment and not premeditation. B
And he did not use any other inflammable accelerators apart
from the lighter and the newspaper. And the damage were
C mainly beddings and curtains. C
D
So having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am D
of the view that a starting point of 15 years is appropriate
for the attempted murder offence. So for the two arson
E offences, I am of the view that a starting point of 6 years E
is appropriate. And for the assault occasioning actual bodily
harm offence, a starting point of 3 months is appropriate
F under the circumstances. F
G And the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest available G
opportunity, which is timely plea. And so he is entitled to
a full one-third discount. I also agree with Mr Ma that the
H circumstances of this whole case is such that all the H
sentences should run concurrently.
I So for the 1st count, arson, 4 years. 2nd count, arson, 4 I
years. 3rd count, attempted murder, 10 years. The 4th count,
J the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 2 months. All to J
run concurrently, making a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 6 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
HCCC 15/2024
[2024] HKCFI 2627
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2024
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Lam Chiu-lau
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon Barnes J H
Date: 5 September 2024 at 9.37 am
Present: Ms Rosa Lo, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
I Mr David W K Ma, instructed by S H Chan & Co, assigned I
by DLA, for the accused
J Offence: (1), (2) Arson (縱火) J
(3) Attempted murder (企圖謀殺)
(4) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊他人致造
K K
成身體傷害)
L L
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
M of the Sentence in the above Case M
---------------------------------
N N
COURT: Defendant, Lam Chiu-lau, pleaded guilty before a magistrate
on the following four charges and was committed to the Court
O of First Instance of the High Court for sentence. The 1st O
and the 2nd counts are arson, contrary to Section 60(1) and
(3) of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. The 3rd count is
P P
attempted murder, contrary to Common Law and Sections 159G
and 159J(1)(a) of the same Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. And
Q the 4th count is assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Q
contrary to Common Law and punishable under Section 39 of the
Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212.
R R
Now, the admitted facts, that means the facts that you have
admitted in the Magistracy. All right, defendant, at the
S S
time you were 81 years old. And there was Au Lin, he was
aged 73. And then there was a Chan Wing-kau, he was aged 78.
T All males, right. You were all living in an elderly home in T
Sham Shui Po. The defendant, at that time, occupied Bed A16,
and Mr Au occupied Bed A18. They were close to each other,
U with A17 in between. And the bed of Mr Chan was A19, and U
then Bed 20, they were across the corridor.
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 1 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Defendant, you had a grudge with Mr Au prior to the incident
B because Mr Au always shouted for no reason. The Mr Au had B
suffered from a stroke, and as a result, and at all material
times, he could not move his left hand and left leg. And he
C was bedridden. C
D
So on 10 January 2023 at 1210 hours, that means noon time, D
defendant you suddenly burnt your own bed, that is A16,
causing damage to the mattress which is 50 centimetres x 40
E centimetres was damaged. The bedsheet was damaged. The size E
was 30 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And also a window
curtain nearby was damaged. The size was 50 centimetres x 40
F centimetres. So that’s the subject of the 1st count, arson. F
G A forensic scientist subsequently found traces of light G
petroleum distillate, a highly flammable and common
constituent in lighter fluid, on the bedsheet of Bed A16,
H which was seized. H
Then, immediately after, the defendant you held a lighter and
I a burnt newspaper near Bed A20. That was on the other side I
of the corridor. You threw the burnt newspaper to Bed A20,
J on which no person was lying because the occupier of A20 J
happened to be visiting outside, so he wasn’t in bed. So Bed
A20 was burnt, and causing damage on the mattress the size of
K 50 centimetres x 30 centimetres. And the bedsheet was K
damaged, 10 centimetres x 10 centimetres. And that’s the
subject of the 2nd count, arson.
L L
Again, the scientist found traces of light petroleum
M distillate, which is from the lighter and this bedsheet was M
seized.
N And then, defendant, you walked towards Bed A18 and threw N
another burnt newspaper to this bed. And Mr Au was lying on
A18. So this bed A18 was burnt, causing damage to the
O O
mattress, 50 centimetres x 10 centimetres damaged. The
bedsheet, 30 centimetres x 10 centimetres, was damaged. Also,
P the trousers of Mr Au was damaged as well. And Mr Au’s left P
thigh sustained injuries. So that’s the subject matter of
the 3rd count.
Q Q
Lastly, at the time Mr Chan was sleeping in Bed 19, and he
heard someone shouting for help. And he saw Bed A16 was on
R R
fire. So he shouted “extinguish the fire”. And then,
defendant, you punched the right side of his face twice. You
S intended to stop him from shouting. So that’s the subject S
matter of the 4th count.
T And then, Mr Chan subdued you on the ground and the case was T
reported to the police. And the fire was actually put out by
U
the automatic sprinkler installed at the elderly home. One U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 2 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
nursing staff and nine elderly residents were evacuated during
this incident.
B B
The police attended the scene and arrested you. And you
remained silent under caution. So the police officers seized
C two lighters, two bottles of rice wine, the window curtain, C
one bedsheet near bed A16, another two bedsheets and some
D
ashes were seized at Beds A18 and A20. CCTV capturing the D
whole incident was also seized.
E Mr Au and Mr Chan were both sent to the Caritas Medical Centre E
for medical treatment. So in relation to Mr Au, he sustained
burn of about 0.5 to 1 per cent, second degree burn, and a 4-
F centimetre diameter blister on his left thigh. Mr Au was F
discharged on 12 January 2023 as his condition was stable.
G In relation to Mr Chan, he sustained abrasion and tenderness G
on his right cheek, and he was discharged immediately after
checking.
H H
The defendant admitted that he burnt Bed A16 and Bed A20. At
the time when he admitted the 1st count and the 2nd count, he
I intended to damage the property particularised in the charge, I
or he was reckless as to whether such property would be
J damaged. And the defendant admitted that at all material J
times he had attempted to murder Mr Au in the course of
committing the 3rd count, during which he had intention to
K kill Mr Au. So those were the facts you have admitted. K
Now, the background and the mitigation. According to the
L L
antecedent statement, the defendant was born in January 1942.
So he is now 82 years of age, or 83. 82 years of age. The
M defendant, you, had a total of 12 previous convictions, M
including murder, wounding with intent, theft and gambling.
You were educated up to Form 3 level and was unemployed at
N the time of the arrest. N
Your counsel Mr David Ma provided further background
O O
information on you for my consideration. The defendant was
described as a loner with no relatives or friends. He was
P living on social welfare allowances, and was arranged by the P
authorities to live in the elderly home in question.
Q The defendant was convicted of murder at the age of 39, when Q
he killed his baby son. He also wounded his wife. And he
was sentenced to death, actually. But later it was commuted
R R
to life imprisonment, and which further later commuted to 37
years of imprisonment. And he has served a lengthy sentence
S for about 25 years. So when he was first released from S
prison, he committed offences of violence a few more times.
And so he was in and out of prison. His last conviction was
T wounding with intent, and he was sentenced to 3 years’ T
imprisonment in 2019.
U U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 3 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Mr Ma submitted that prior to the defendant’s conviction of
murder, he was working as a factory worker and construction
B worker. The protracted period of repeated incarceration had B
turned the defendant to be an unskilled and unsociable old
man. He was lonely and frustrated, vulnerable to his
C emotions, which further provoked his recourse to violence. C
The defendant himself has an insight that he is a threat to
D
the society and to himself if left to live his solitary life D
in open setting. The defendant is ashamed to ask for
leniency, and he asks this court to understand him. And it
E is his wish to spend the rest of his life in custody for the E
benefit of the society.
F Mr Ma referred to the case of Lo Man Kit, which quoted the F
case of Lee Wai Keung, and submitted there is no sentencing
G guideline for attempted murder, as the facts varied a great G
deal. He also referred this court to the cases of Kwan Chor
Leung and Lam Kam Loy, in which the courts remarked that arson
H is an offence of the utmost gravity, where the gravity depends H
on the facts of any particular case.
I In the present case, the defendant committed the attempted I
murder by means of arson. The defence accepted that there
J may be aggravating factors which may increase the sentence to J
be imposed. And these are the factors of this case. Some of
them may be aggravating factors.
K K
Now, the scene was an elderly home equipped with sprinkler
system, and the fire was set at noon time. Though it’s
L L
unclear how many inhabitants were there, but it’s reasonable
to assume that there were other people living there apart
M from Mr Au and Mr Chan. Mr Au was 73 years old and bedridden, M
and he suffered burns and a 4-centimetre blister on his left
thigh. And Mr Chan was assaulted when he was shouting for
N help. So the defendant was trying to stop Mr Chan’s effort N
to stop him, that is the defendant, perpetrating the crime.
And the defendant did not use any other inflammable accelerant
O O
other than the lighter and the burnt newspaper, which is
thrown on the bed of Mr Au. And there was no evidence of
P premeditation before he set fire to his own bed, and then the P
bed of Mr Au.
Q Mr Ma referred this court to the facts of the cases I have Q
mentioned, Lo Man Kit, Lam Kam Loy, Kwan Chor Leung and Liu
Suet Ha, and what sentences were passed by the court. And Mr
R R
Ma acknowledged that none of these authorities cited would be
readily applicable in the present case. However, these cases
S show how the court approached with delicacy the relevant S
matters. Mr Ma submitted that the fact that there were other
inhabitants, that Mr Au was bedridden and that the defendant
T assaulted Mr Chan, who tried to stop him, they were all T
aggravating factors. And Mr Ma submitted that a starting
U
point of 15 years may be appropriate in this case. U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 4 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
As for the two arson charges, Mr Ma submitted they should be
considered as the contemporaneous act perpetrated by the
B defendant in the context of the attempted murder. The damage B
to the properties were rather limited, though there was the
potential of impairment to the premises, to those residing at
C the elderly home and to the neighbourhood. Mr Ma asked this C
court to consider imposing concurrent sentences for these two
D
offences with the attempted murder. D
For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Mr
E Ma submitted that Mr Chan’s injury was minor. And to avoid E
double counting, Mr Ma also asked this court to order the
sentence of this offence to run concurrently with all others.
F F
Now, then this is my consideration for the sentence.
G G
Attempted murder and arson are both serious offences. As
submitted by Mr Ma and confirmed by the case law,
H circumstances for arson and, indeed, attempted murder vary H
greatly, so that the sentence to be imposed is fact sensitive.
Other cases do not really afford much assistance. As far as
I arson is concerned, at least with the presence of sprinklers I
and that the crime was committed in midday rendered it less
J serious when compared to cases such as Lo Man Kit. In that J
case the defendant set out an explosion in the kitchen after
threatening to rape the victim, and he also tried to suffocate
K the victim with a pillow. K
For the case of Lam Kam Loy, where the defendant in mid-life
L L
crisis set fire at night with thinner in his home where his
wife and daughter were also living, and he tried to stop them
M from leaving when the fire is spread. M
For the case of Kwan Chor Leung, the defendant was in high
N emotion and set fire to a warehouse in which people were N
living in the early hours of the morning, and he secured the
gates to stop the people from leaving.
O O
For the last case of Liu Suet Ha, the defendant set fire to
P the quilt covering her husband and spilled liquid, possibly P
thinner, on the husband’s right arm. So comparing to all
those cases, this one is less serious.
Q Q
Nevertheless, as considered by Mr Ma, there were aggravating
factors here. In particularly, the defendant attempted to
R R
kill Mr Au, who was bedridden, by setting fire to his bed.
The defendant is an old man, 82 years of age now. Yet he
S still remained a threat to the society. He held a grudge S
against Mr Au simply because Mr Au was making noise. And to
him, Mr Au was making noise with no reason. But we don’t
T know, if he was in pain, that’s why he made noises, but T
anyway, that was why he held a grudge against Mr Au. And the
U
defendant was easily provoked and reacted with such drastic U
and dangerous act, to set fire to the beds.
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 5 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
I accept, on the evidence, that it does appear the defendant
B was acting on the spur of the moment and not premeditation. B
And he did not use any other inflammable accelerators apart
from the lighter and the newspaper. And the damage were
C mainly beddings and curtains. C
D
So having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am D
of the view that a starting point of 15 years is appropriate
for the attempted murder offence. So for the two arson
E offences, I am of the view that a starting point of 6 years E
is appropriate. And for the assault occasioning actual bodily
harm offence, a starting point of 3 months is appropriate
F under the circumstances. F
G And the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest available G
opportunity, which is timely plea. And so he is entitled to
a full one-third discount. I also agree with Mr Ma that the
H circumstances of this whole case is such that all the H
sentences should run concurrently.
I So for the 1st count, arson, 4 years. 2nd count, arson, 4 I
years. 3rd count, attempted murder, 10 years. The 4th count,
J the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 2 months. All to J
run concurrently, making a total of 10 years’ imprisonment.
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT22/5.9.2024/JC 6 HCCC 15/2024(1)/Sentence
V V