區域法院（刑事）Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock10/12/2020[2020] HKDC 1190
DCCC182/2020
A A
B B
DCCC 182/2020
C [2020] HKDC 1190 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 182 OF 2020
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAI CHUN HUNG I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock in Court K
Date: 11 December 2020
L L
Present: Mr Wong Chun Hin Derek, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions M
Mr Kwan Man Wai Steven, instructed by Ho Tse Wai &
N N
Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offences: [1] Attempted arson with intent (有意圖而企圖縱火)
P P
[2] Possession of offensive weapons in a public place (在公
Q Q
眾地方管有攻擊性武器)
R [3] Possession of things with intent to destroy or damage R
property (管有物品意圖摧毀或損壞財產)
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
-----------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
-----------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 2. He pleaded E
guilty to Attempted arson with intent, contrary to sections 60(2), 60(3),
F F
63(1) and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, Charge 1. On 18
G November 2019 near the junction of Hak Po Street and Soy Street, Mong G
Kok, Kowloon, the defendant, without lawful excuse, attempted to destroy
H H
or damage by fire a police vehicle, intending to destroy or damage such
I property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed I
or damaged, and being reckless as to whether the life of the passengers of
J J
the said police vehicle would be thereby endangered.
K K
2. He pleaded guilty to Charge 2, Possession of offensive
L L
weapons in a public place, contrary to section 33(1) and (2) of the Public
M Order Ordinance, Cap 245. On the same date in a public place on Hak Po M
Street, Mong Kok, the defendant without lawful authority or reasonable
N N
excuse, had with him offensive weapons, namely one knife, one extendable
O batten and one bottle of pepper gel. O
P P
3. He pleaded not guilty to Charge 3, Possession of things with
Q intent to destroy or damage property, contrary to section 62(a) and 63(2) Q
of the Crimes Ordinance. The particulars were that on the same date the
R R
defendant had in his custody or under his control one gas torch attached to
S a gas canister, one can of gas canister, one multipurpose tool, one rope saw S
and one awl, intending without lawful excuse to use the said things or cause
T T
or permit another to use the said things to destroy or damage property
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
belonging to some other person. This charge was put on the court file, not
C to be dealt with unless there was the required leave. C
D D
Facts of the Case
E E
4. From June 2019, Hong Kong experienced a number of
F F
protests that escalated into serious social unrest and public disorder. In the
G early hours of the morning of 18 November 2019 a team of police officers G
in a police vehicle arrived in Mong Kok at around 5:43 am to disperse
H H
hundreds of protesters gathered in that area who had set up roadblocks and
I barricades. I
J J
5. When the police vehicle arrived at the junction of Waterloo
K Road and Yim Po Fong Road they saw around 100 protesters gathered K
there. As they drove up, the protesters scattered in different directions.
L L
The police vehicle drove on and 2 minutes later, it reached Hak Po Street
M near the junction of Soy Street. M
N N
6. It was near this junction that the police saw the defendant
O throw a petrol bomb towards them from around 5 to 10 m away. It landed O
near the right front of their vehicle but it did not explode, hence, the charge
P P
of attempted arson. This was caught on CCTV from a nearby camera. The
Q CCTV captured a group of people in black at that junction who started to Q
run when the police vehicle approached. It then captured someone hurling
R R
a bright and what appears to be a burning object towards the police vehicle
S and running away. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. The defendant was wearing a black motorcycle helmet, a pink
C respirator, dark shirt, dark trousers and carrying a dark rucksack. C
Immediately after he threw the petrol bomb he fled. The police officers
D D
jumping out of the police vehicle and chasing him. They caught him some
E 60 to 70 m away. E
F F
8. He was subdued and searched and the police found either in
G his rucksack or attached to his waist belt amongst other things, the weapons G
of Charge 2.
H H
I 9. The defendant admits that the bottle of pepper gel could I
discharge a liquid containing chemicals that would elicit a burning
J J
sensation in the soft muscosal tissues and qualified as noxious chemicals.
K Additionally, he admits that the knife was 25 cm long with a 11 cm blade. K
The extendable batten was 32 cm long when extended.
L L
M 10. It is admitted that a government forensic scientist found traces M
of petrol on the defendant’s shirt, trousers, shoes and gloves. Some burned
N N
debris was found on the ground where the bottle landed which also
O contained traces of petrol. O
P P
Mitigation
Q Q
11. The defendant is now 25 years old and has a clear record. His
R R
best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
S S
12. He came to Hong Kong on a one-way permit from the
T T
Mainland with his mother when 14 years old. He seldom saw his father,
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
his parents divorced and he and his mother are very close. His mother
C suffers from depression. They lived in a very small subdivided room and C
relied on his mother’s income working in fast food restaurants. He found
D D
it hard to adapt to life in Hong Kong where he faced racial abuse, prejudices
E and had no friends. E
F F
13. He threw himself into voluntary work at school and outside of
G school. He spent much time visiting elderly people, organising voluntary G
activities and helping people who were socially disadvantaged. His teacher
H H
praised him for his enthusiasm and kindness to others.
I I
14. When he left school he studied and obtained a higher diploma
J J
in civil engineering 3 years ago. When he was arrested he was an electrical
K technician in and on construction sites earning $20,000 a month. K
L L
15. In 2018 he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist to have attention
M M
deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as cyclothymic disorder.
N N
He was prescribed medication but in early 2019 he stopped taking it
O
because of side-effects. I have a psychiatric report from United Christian O
hospital dated August 2020 and after plea was taken and mitigation heard,
P P
I adjourned for an another psychiatric report.
Q Q
16. I don’t intend to repeat the contents or details of this most up
R R
to date report. The previous diagnosis is affirmed and the defendant
S confirmed he committed these offences. The defence position is that he S
was suffering from the symptoms of these disorders then but Mr Kwan for
T T
the defendant has specific instructions that the defendant knew what he was
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
doing at the material time. Mr Kwan accepts that nothing in the psychiatrist
C report suggests that ADHD or cyclothymic played any part in the C
commission of these offences. The defendant knew what he was doing at
D D
the time and committed Charge 1 intentionally even though it was in the
E heat of the moment. E
F F
17. I have many mitigating letters and have considered the
G contents of them all especially the long letter from the defendant himself. G
I have letters from his mother and largely absent father. His fiancée has
H H
written to give me some background into his mental and emotional
I difficulties whilst continuing to support and stand by him. Teachers have I
written to tell me of the prejudices he suffered as an immigrant student
J J
which did not stop him trying hard and finding opportunities to help others
K instead of wallowing in self-pity. K
L L
18. Social workers, family friends, volunteers who visit prisoners
M on remand, legislative councilors who have come to know the defendant M
and even a fellow prisoner who is from Africa have written asking for
N N
leniency and mercy. The defendant has helped this fellow prisoner find
O ways to communicate with his family at home and finally receive long- O
awaited letters with recent photographs of his family from Africa. His
P P
actions demonstrate kindness. This prisoner calls the defendant an angel
Q and feels blessed to call him a friend. Q
R R
19. In mitigation it has been submitted that he did not make the
S petrol bomb himself or carry one on him to the scene. It was submitted that S
he picked it up from the ground. He admits he threw a burning petrol bomb
T T
which meant he lit it himself if he did pick it up from the ground. He has
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
told the psychiatrist he is a non-smoker and a non-drinker yet he had a
C lighter on his person he used to light it. Whether or not he did pick it up off C
the ground, what is important is he made a conscious decision to light a
D D
petrol bomb in order to throw it at a police vehicle.
E E
20. Mr Kwan has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant.
F F
He does reiterate that the plea to the 1st charge is tendered on the basis of
G recklessness as to whether property would be damaged and whether life G
would be endangered as opposed to an intent to damage property or
H H
endanger life. This is accepted by the prosecution.
I I
Reasons for sentence
J J
K 21. This 1st charge is an attempted arson with intent because the K
defendant attempted to destroy or damage a police vehicle with a petrol
L L
bomb. He admits he wanted to stop the police advancing on other protesters.
M He was reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or M
damaged and was reckless as to whether the life of the passengers of the
N N
said police vehicle would be thereby endangered.
O O
22. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that an offence of
P P
this nature, irrespective of motive or reason is to be taken and viewed with
Q the utmost seriousness. It has been said that arson, because of the inherent Q
danger in an uncontrollable fire, is always regarded as an offence of
R R
particular gravity. Arsonists have been described as exhibiting a reckless
S disregard for life and property. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
23. Arson can attract a life sentence. Such a maximum sentence
C highlights the seriousness with which deliberately starting fires must be C
viewed. There are no tariff guidelines for arson. Each case very much
D D
depends on its own facts and circumstances; these vary so much in cases
E of arson. Courts must impose a sentence which properly reflects the gravity E
of the particular case and its own individual facts.
F F
G 24. The police were in the area because of protesting and public G
disorder. The defendant’s act of throwing a petrol bomb or Molotov
H H
cocktail at the police vehicle is to be viewed as the defendant targeting
I police officers. He threw a petrol bomb at the police or in the direction of I
their vehicle to prevent them carrying out their duty. The fact it luckily did
J J
not explode does not make the offence any less serious. He acted with
K contempt and disdain for law and order. K
L L
25. There must be a sentence that deters the defendant and others.
M The defendant’s act of throwing a petrol bomb and possession of multiple M
offensive weapons shows he intended to commit arson and was well
N N
prepared.
O O
26. There is planning and premeditation in his possession of a
P P
knife, extendable batten and pepper spray. He told the psychiatrist that he
Q possessed the items in self defence in the social movement. Q
R R
27. His criminal act of throwing a petrol bomb should never be
S confused or associated with legitimate and peaceful protest. The S
seriousness lies in the fact such a weapon is notoriously unstable.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
28. Such planning, intention and recklessness is enough to
C warrant a sentence of significant length. Sentencing is a balancing act and C
in some cases the serious nature, circumstances and the prevalence of the
D D
offence in that period of time requires a custodial sentence that serves as a
E deterrent to others. Such a sentence will therefore take priority over the E
personal details and mitigation of the defendant.
F F
G 29. Mr Kwan has directed me to the sentencing guidelines of the G
United Kingdom for arson with intent to endanger life or reckless as to
H H
whether life is endangered. Where an offender was reckless as to whether
I life was endangered, culpability B and the level of harm assessed as I
category 1 meaning there was a high-risk of very serious physical and/or
J J
psychological harm then the guidelines suggest a range of between 4 to 10
K years’ imprisonment. K
L 30. The same guidelines separately lists factors that would L
increase seriousness such as the use of an accelerant, significant degree of
M M
planning and premeditation, where multiple people could be endangered,
N N
where there may be a significant impact on the emergency services or
O
resources amongst others. All of those factors are relevant here. The UK O
sentencing guidelines give an insight into how serious it is to throw a petrol
P P
bomb aimed at the police.
Q Q
31. I have been referred to recent sentences imposed in the
R R
District Court for arson or attempted arson with intent arising from the
S social unrest and protests of 2019. I have been referred to sentences arising S
from the 1967 riots and the early 1990 riots in Vietnamese detention
T T
centres.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
32. With respect, these cases reviewed are of little assistance to
C me in passing sentence. Some are not similar or comparable and I repeat, C
in any event each case very much depends on its own facts.
D D
33. I have taken into account his age, previous clear record,
E E
mitigation letters and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have taken
F into account the medical reports and their contents. F
G G
34. I have also taken into account as I have said above that there
H was some planning in the commission of these offences. He equipped H
himself with a variety of serious weapons to join a protest. His manner of
I I
dress was deliberately designed to avoid the risk of identification and arrest
J but ironically the motorcycle helmet may have hidden his face but made J
him easy to spot and follow.
K K
L 35. It is an aggravating factor that for this attempted arson offence L
the defendant intended to use a petrol bomb to achieve his purpose of
M M
stopping the police advancing. The potential harm and mayhem that could
N N
have been caused was considerable because once a petrol bomb is ignited
O
and thrown, it is quite impossible to foresee the possible or likely O
consequences. It is also possible an already volatile situation could have
P P
been made much worse.
Q Q
36. Having considered all of the relevant factors, the facts of this
R R
case and everything put in mitigation I find a starting point of 5 years’
S imprisonment appropriate for charge 1. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
37. I find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
C appropriate for charge 2. I find it appropriate after considering the number C
of weapons and their variety as well as the injuries they could cause.
D D
E 38. The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity E
therefore; he will receive a one-third reduction in his sentences. Other than
F F
this, there is nothing in mitigation I find would warrant any further
G reduction in sentences. G
H H
39. For charge 1, 5 years reduced by one-third will mean 3 years
I and 4 months’ imprisonment. For charge 2, 2 years and 6 months reduced I
by one-third will mean 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K 40. Taking into account the totality principle, I find it appropriate K
to order the sentences to be served concurrently. Therefore, the defendant
L L
is sentenced to a total of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
M M
N N
O O
P P
( A J Woodcock )
Q District Judge Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 182/2020
C [2020] HKDC 1190 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 182 OF 2020
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAI CHUN HUNG I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Her Honour Judge A J Woodcock in Court K
Date: 11 December 2020
L L
Present: Mr Wong Chun Hin Derek, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR/ Director of Public Prosecutions M
Mr Kwan Man Wai Steven, instructed by Ho Tse Wai &
N N
Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offences: [1] Attempted arson with intent (有意圖而企圖縱火)
P P
[2] Possession of offensive weapons in a public place (在公
Q Q
眾地方管有攻擊性武器)
R [3] Possession of things with intent to destroy or damage R
property (管有物品意圖摧毀或損壞財產)
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
-----------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
-----------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1 and 2. He pleaded E
guilty to Attempted arson with intent, contrary to sections 60(2), 60(3),
F F
63(1) and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, Charge 1. On 18
G November 2019 near the junction of Hak Po Street and Soy Street, Mong G
Kok, Kowloon, the defendant, without lawful excuse, attempted to destroy
H H
or damage by fire a police vehicle, intending to destroy or damage such
I property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed I
or damaged, and being reckless as to whether the life of the passengers of
J J
the said police vehicle would be thereby endangered.
K K
2. He pleaded guilty to Charge 2, Possession of offensive
L L
weapons in a public place, contrary to section 33(1) and (2) of the Public
M Order Ordinance, Cap 245. On the same date in a public place on Hak Po M
Street, Mong Kok, the defendant without lawful authority or reasonable
N N
excuse, had with him offensive weapons, namely one knife, one extendable
O batten and one bottle of pepper gel. O
P P
3. He pleaded not guilty to Charge 3, Possession of things with
Q intent to destroy or damage property, contrary to section 62(a) and 63(2) Q
of the Crimes Ordinance. The particulars were that on the same date the
R R
defendant had in his custody or under his control one gas torch attached to
S a gas canister, one can of gas canister, one multipurpose tool, one rope saw S
and one awl, intending without lawful excuse to use the said things or cause
T T
or permit another to use the said things to destroy or damage property
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
belonging to some other person. This charge was put on the court file, not
C to be dealt with unless there was the required leave. C
D D
Facts of the Case
E E
4. From June 2019, Hong Kong experienced a number of
F F
protests that escalated into serious social unrest and public disorder. In the
G early hours of the morning of 18 November 2019 a team of police officers G
in a police vehicle arrived in Mong Kok at around 5:43 am to disperse
H H
hundreds of protesters gathered in that area who had set up roadblocks and
I barricades. I
J J
5. When the police vehicle arrived at the junction of Waterloo
K Road and Yim Po Fong Road they saw around 100 protesters gathered K
there. As they drove up, the protesters scattered in different directions.
L L
The police vehicle drove on and 2 minutes later, it reached Hak Po Street
M near the junction of Soy Street. M
N N
6. It was near this junction that the police saw the defendant
O throw a petrol bomb towards them from around 5 to 10 m away. It landed O
near the right front of their vehicle but it did not explode, hence, the charge
P P
of attempted arson. This was caught on CCTV from a nearby camera. The
Q CCTV captured a group of people in black at that junction who started to Q
run when the police vehicle approached. It then captured someone hurling
R R
a bright and what appears to be a burning object towards the police vehicle
S and running away. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. The defendant was wearing a black motorcycle helmet, a pink
C respirator, dark shirt, dark trousers and carrying a dark rucksack. C
Immediately after he threw the petrol bomb he fled. The police officers
D D
jumping out of the police vehicle and chasing him. They caught him some
E 60 to 70 m away. E
F F
8. He was subdued and searched and the police found either in
G his rucksack or attached to his waist belt amongst other things, the weapons G
of Charge 2.
H H
I 9. The defendant admits that the bottle of pepper gel could I
discharge a liquid containing chemicals that would elicit a burning
J J
sensation in the soft muscosal tissues and qualified as noxious chemicals.
K Additionally, he admits that the knife was 25 cm long with a 11 cm blade. K
The extendable batten was 32 cm long when extended.
L L
M 10. It is admitted that a government forensic scientist found traces M
of petrol on the defendant’s shirt, trousers, shoes and gloves. Some burned
N N
debris was found on the ground where the bottle landed which also
O contained traces of petrol. O
P P
Mitigation
Q Q
11. The defendant is now 25 years old and has a clear record. His
R R
best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
S S
12. He came to Hong Kong on a one-way permit from the
T T
Mainland with his mother when 14 years old. He seldom saw his father,
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
his parents divorced and he and his mother are very close. His mother
C suffers from depression. They lived in a very small subdivided room and C
relied on his mother’s income working in fast food restaurants. He found
D D
it hard to adapt to life in Hong Kong where he faced racial abuse, prejudices
E and had no friends. E
F F
13. He threw himself into voluntary work at school and outside of
G school. He spent much time visiting elderly people, organising voluntary G
activities and helping people who were socially disadvantaged. His teacher
H H
praised him for his enthusiasm and kindness to others.
I I
14. When he left school he studied and obtained a higher diploma
J J
in civil engineering 3 years ago. When he was arrested he was an electrical
K technician in and on construction sites earning $20,000 a month. K
L L
15. In 2018 he was diagnosed by a psychiatrist to have attention
M M
deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as cyclothymic disorder.
N N
He was prescribed medication but in early 2019 he stopped taking it
O
because of side-effects. I have a psychiatric report from United Christian O
hospital dated August 2020 and after plea was taken and mitigation heard,
P P
I adjourned for an another psychiatric report.
Q Q
16. I don’t intend to repeat the contents or details of this most up
R R
to date report. The previous diagnosis is affirmed and the defendant
S confirmed he committed these offences. The defence position is that he S
was suffering from the symptoms of these disorders then but Mr Kwan for
T T
the defendant has specific instructions that the defendant knew what he was
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
doing at the material time. Mr Kwan accepts that nothing in the psychiatrist
C report suggests that ADHD or cyclothymic played any part in the C
commission of these offences. The defendant knew what he was doing at
D D
the time and committed Charge 1 intentionally even though it was in the
E heat of the moment. E
F F
17. I have many mitigating letters and have considered the
G contents of them all especially the long letter from the defendant himself. G
I have letters from his mother and largely absent father. His fiancée has
H H
written to give me some background into his mental and emotional
I difficulties whilst continuing to support and stand by him. Teachers have I
written to tell me of the prejudices he suffered as an immigrant student
J J
which did not stop him trying hard and finding opportunities to help others
K instead of wallowing in self-pity. K
L L
18. Social workers, family friends, volunteers who visit prisoners
M on remand, legislative councilors who have come to know the defendant M
and even a fellow prisoner who is from Africa have written asking for
N N
leniency and mercy. The defendant has helped this fellow prisoner find
O ways to communicate with his family at home and finally receive long- O
awaited letters with recent photographs of his family from Africa. His
P P
actions demonstrate kindness. This prisoner calls the defendant an angel
Q and feels blessed to call him a friend. Q
R R
19. In mitigation it has been submitted that he did not make the
S petrol bomb himself or carry one on him to the scene. It was submitted that S
he picked it up from the ground. He admits he threw a burning petrol bomb
T T
which meant he lit it himself if he did pick it up from the ground. He has
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
told the psychiatrist he is a non-smoker and a non-drinker yet he had a
C lighter on his person he used to light it. Whether or not he did pick it up off C
the ground, what is important is he made a conscious decision to light a
D D
petrol bomb in order to throw it at a police vehicle.
E E
20. Mr Kwan has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant.
F F
He does reiterate that the plea to the 1st charge is tendered on the basis of
G recklessness as to whether property would be damaged and whether life G
would be endangered as opposed to an intent to damage property or
H H
endanger life. This is accepted by the prosecution.
I I
Reasons for sentence
J J
K 21. This 1st charge is an attempted arson with intent because the K
defendant attempted to destroy or damage a police vehicle with a petrol
L L
bomb. He admits he wanted to stop the police advancing on other protesters.
M He was reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or M
damaged and was reckless as to whether the life of the passengers of the
N N
said police vehicle would be thereby endangered.
O O
22. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that an offence of
P P
this nature, irrespective of motive or reason is to be taken and viewed with
Q the utmost seriousness. It has been said that arson, because of the inherent Q
danger in an uncontrollable fire, is always regarded as an offence of
R R
particular gravity. Arsonists have been described as exhibiting a reckless
S disregard for life and property. S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
23. Arson can attract a life sentence. Such a maximum sentence
C highlights the seriousness with which deliberately starting fires must be C
viewed. There are no tariff guidelines for arson. Each case very much
D D
depends on its own facts and circumstances; these vary so much in cases
E of arson. Courts must impose a sentence which properly reflects the gravity E
of the particular case and its own individual facts.
F F
G 24. The police were in the area because of protesting and public G
disorder. The defendant’s act of throwing a petrol bomb or Molotov
H H
cocktail at the police vehicle is to be viewed as the defendant targeting
I police officers. He threw a petrol bomb at the police or in the direction of I
their vehicle to prevent them carrying out their duty. The fact it luckily did
J J
not explode does not make the offence any less serious. He acted with
K contempt and disdain for law and order. K
L L
25. There must be a sentence that deters the defendant and others.
M The defendant’s act of throwing a petrol bomb and possession of multiple M
offensive weapons shows he intended to commit arson and was well
N N
prepared.
O O
26. There is planning and premeditation in his possession of a
P P
knife, extendable batten and pepper spray. He told the psychiatrist that he
Q possessed the items in self defence in the social movement. Q
R R
27. His criminal act of throwing a petrol bomb should never be
S confused or associated with legitimate and peaceful protest. The S
seriousness lies in the fact such a weapon is notoriously unstable.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
28. Such planning, intention and recklessness is enough to
C warrant a sentence of significant length. Sentencing is a balancing act and C
in some cases the serious nature, circumstances and the prevalence of the
D D
offence in that period of time requires a custodial sentence that serves as a
E deterrent to others. Such a sentence will therefore take priority over the E
personal details and mitigation of the defendant.
F F
G 29. Mr Kwan has directed me to the sentencing guidelines of the G
United Kingdom for arson with intent to endanger life or reckless as to
H H
whether life is endangered. Where an offender was reckless as to whether
I life was endangered, culpability B and the level of harm assessed as I
category 1 meaning there was a high-risk of very serious physical and/or
J J
psychological harm then the guidelines suggest a range of between 4 to 10
K years’ imprisonment. K
L 30. The same guidelines separately lists factors that would L
increase seriousness such as the use of an accelerant, significant degree of
M M
planning and premeditation, where multiple people could be endangered,
N N
where there may be a significant impact on the emergency services or
O
resources amongst others. All of those factors are relevant here. The UK O
sentencing guidelines give an insight into how serious it is to throw a petrol
P P
bomb aimed at the police.
Q Q
31. I have been referred to recent sentences imposed in the
R R
District Court for arson or attempted arson with intent arising from the
S social unrest and protests of 2019. I have been referred to sentences arising S
from the 1967 riots and the early 1990 riots in Vietnamese detention
T T
centres.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
32. With respect, these cases reviewed are of little assistance to
C me in passing sentence. Some are not similar or comparable and I repeat, C
in any event each case very much depends on its own facts.
D D
33. I have taken into account his age, previous clear record,
E E
mitigation letters and mitigation put forward on his behalf. I have taken
F into account the medical reports and their contents. F
G G
34. I have also taken into account as I have said above that there
H was some planning in the commission of these offences. He equipped H
himself with a variety of serious weapons to join a protest. His manner of
I I
dress was deliberately designed to avoid the risk of identification and arrest
J but ironically the motorcycle helmet may have hidden his face but made J
him easy to spot and follow.
K K
L 35. It is an aggravating factor that for this attempted arson offence L
the defendant intended to use a petrol bomb to achieve his purpose of
M M
stopping the police advancing. The potential harm and mayhem that could
N N
have been caused was considerable because once a petrol bomb is ignited
O
and thrown, it is quite impossible to foresee the possible or likely O
consequences. It is also possible an already volatile situation could have
P P
been made much worse.
Q Q
36. Having considered all of the relevant factors, the facts of this
R R
case and everything put in mitigation I find a starting point of 5 years’
S imprisonment appropriate for charge 1. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
37. I find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
C appropriate for charge 2. I find it appropriate after considering the number C
of weapons and their variety as well as the injuries they could cause.
D D
E 38. The defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity E
therefore; he will receive a one-third reduction in his sentences. Other than
F F
this, there is nothing in mitigation I find would warrant any further
G reduction in sentences. G
H H
39. For charge 1, 5 years reduced by one-third will mean 3 years
I and 4 months’ imprisonment. For charge 2, 2 years and 6 months reduced I
by one-third will mean 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
J J
K 40. Taking into account the totality principle, I find it appropriate K
to order the sentences to be served concurrently. Therefore, the defendant
L L
is sentenced to a total of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
M M
N N
O O
P P
( A J Woodcock )
Q District Judge Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V