區域法院（刑事）His Honour Judge E Yip6/11/2025[2025] HKDC 1656
DCCC84/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 84/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1656 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 84 OF 2025
F F
G ------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAW FU WING Defendant I
------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge E Yip in Court K
Date: 7 November 2025
L L
Present: Ms. Elisa Cheng, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR.
M Ms. Amanda Li, Counsel instructed by Messrs. Tang Wong & M
Cheung Solicitors, assigned by D.L.A. for the Defendant.
N N
Offence: [1] Criminal intimidation (刑事恐嚇)
O O
[2] Conspiracy to commit arson (串謀縱火)
P [3] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause P
(無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
Q Q
R --------------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
---------------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
The Charges and Plea
C C
1. The Defendant faces three charges. Following plea
D D
bargaining, he has pleaded guilty to two charges as follows:
E E
(1) Charge 2: Conspiracy to commit arson, contrary to
F F
sections 60(1) and (3), 63(1), 159A and 159C of the
G Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The Particulars of G
Charge allege that on or about the 26th day of October,
H H
2022, in Hong Kong, conspired together with Yeung
I Chun Sing, without lawful excuse, to destroy or damage I
by fire one private car bearing registration mark
J J
TB7934, property belonging to XXX, intending to
K destroy or damage such property, or being reckless as K
to whether such property would be destroyed or
L L
damaged.
M M
(2) Charge 3: Failing to surrender to custody without
N N
reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of
O the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). The O
Particulars of Charge allege that on the 3rd day of
P P
August, 2023, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted
Q Q
to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to
R
custody as should have been appointed by a court. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts Relevant to Charge 2 — Conspiracy to Commit Arson
C C
2. The Defendant was involved in a traffic accident on 25
D D
October 2022 with a vehicle driven by PW1. Although the matter was
E settled after the Defendant paid HK$25,000 to compensate for the damage, E
he remained resentful towards PW1.
F F
G 3. On the following night, 26 October 2022, the vehicle G
belonging to PW1’s father (PW2) and another adjacent car were found on
H H
fire in the car park of Tin Shing Court, Tin Shui Wai. The fire damaged
I both vehicles. The repair cost for PW2’s car was HK$35,000. The repair I
cost for the adjacent car was HK$39,977. The Defendant had paid
J J
HK$25,000 to PW1 as compensation before the present hearing. At the
K present hearing I am told that the Defendant has already transferred K
HK$49,977 into his instructing solicitors’ account ready to be paid out
L L
through the court to PW2 for HK$10,000 and PW4, the owner of the
M adjacent car, for HK$39,977. I now make an order as compensation to M
PW2 and PW4 accordingly.
N N
O 4. Police investigations revealed the use of flammable O
liquid containing heptane, cyclohexane and methyl cyclohexane,
P P
substances commonly found in paint thinners. A burnt metal can, gloves
Q Q
and cotton waste were recovered near the scene. CCTV footage showed a
R
person (later identified as Yeung Chun Sing, the co-conspirator) entering R
the car park at 9:40 p.m., setting fire to the victim’s vehicle, injuring
S S
himself in the process, and then fleeing.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
5. The Defendant was later arrested. He admitted that, due to the
C grudge arising from the earlier accident, he had conspired with Yeung Chun C
Sing and instructed him to set fire to the victim’s vehicle. The Defendant
D D
did not personally attend the scene but was the instigator of the offence.
E E
Facts Relevant to Charge 3 — Failing to Surrender to Lawful Custody
F F
G 6. The Defendant was granted bail pending proceedings. He was G
due to appear before the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court on 3 August
H H
2023 but failed to do so. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
I I
7. He remained at large for approximately 13 months until 3
J J
September 2024, he was re-arrested.
K K
8. The Defendant later admitted that he failed to surrender
L L
because he wished to stay with his wife, who had just become pregnant
M with their first child. M
N N
The Defendant’s Background
O O
9. The Defendant is 32 years old, born in Hong Kong, educated
P P
up to Secondary level 3. He is married with a 10-year-old daughter from a
Q Q
previous marriage and a 1-year-old son with his current wife. He was
R
working as a part-time van driver earning around HK$15,000 a month and R
was the sole breadwinner and main caregiver for his elderly mother.
S S
T
10. He has 10 previous convictions, but none similar to the T
present offences. His counsel submits that the present offences were
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
committed out of impulsive resentment rather than long-term criminal
C inclination. C
D D
11. He has spent over 14 months in remand and has reflected
E deeply during this period. He expresses remorse and wishes to reform for E
the sake of his family. Six letters from his wife, daughter, mother, and
F F
sisters have been tendered in support.
G G
Sentencing Principles — Conspiracy to Commit Arson (Charge 2)
H H
I 12. Arson is a grave and inherently dangerous offence carrying a I
maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR
J J
v Kung Pak Fu [2008] 2 HKCLRT 235 emphasises that, in densely
K populated Hong Kong, intentional fires—even those resulting only in K
property damage—carry potential for catastrophic harm. Heavy sentences
L L
are required for deterrence.
M M
13. Sentencing must, however, reflect the degree of risk,
N N
the extent of planning, and the motive behind the act. In this case, the arson
O was motivated by personal revenge arising from a traffic dispute. It was O
carried out by an accomplice instructed by the Defendant, using an
P P
accelerant in a public car park, which also caused damage to an adjacent
Q Q
car.
R R
14. Fortunately, the fire was contained quickly and caused no
S S
personal injury. The plan was unsophisticated, and the accomplice suffered
T
self-inflicted burns. There is no evidence of triad involvement or financial T
motive.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 15. Counsel refers to HKSAR v Yeung Chun Sing 揚振昇 [2023] C
HKDC 1845, arising from the same incident, in which the actual
D D
perpetrator received 20 months’ imprisonment after discount. In that case,
E the starting point was 33 months, reduced to 20 months for plea and E
mitigation.
F F
G 16. Reference is also made to HKSAR v Leung Man Chun (D3) G
[2022] HKDC 978, where the third defendant, who organised others to
H H
commit a similar arson involving two cars, received a starting point of 3
I years 3 months for conspiracy to commit arson. That case was aggravated I
by profit motive, the use of youth accomplices, and greater damage.
J J
K 17. The prosecution’s submission, upon referring to a line of K
decisions by the Court of Appeal1) decisions as stated in its letter dated 9
L L
October 2025 to this Court, is that the sentencing decisions at first instance
M M
are neither binding on, nor of any referential value for, courts of the same
N
level. I agree that this legal position is abundantly clear. N
O O
18. I take into account that the Defendant’s act was impulsive in
P nature. His role as instigator suggests that he had had more time to calm P
down but instead elected to ventilate his anger. I take a starting point of 36
Q Q
months’ imprisonment.
R R
Mitigating Factors
S S
T 1
律政司 訴 溫達揚 [2022] HKCA 1328, at para. 27; 香港特別行政區 訴 劉晉旭及其他人 [2025] 1 T
HKLRD 1363 at para. 51; 香港特別行政區 訴 陳彥宏及其他人 [2025] HKCA 605 at para. 43； 香港
U
特別行政區 訴 馮嘉文及其他人 [2025] HKCA 247 at para. 36 U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 19. The Defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, saving C
court time and public expense. He has fully compensated PW2 and PW4
D D
for the repair of their vehicles. There are supportive letters from family
E members showing strong prospects for rehabilitation. E
F F
20. I accept that this was not a triad-related or financially
G motivated act, but rather one of personal revenge and poor judgment. The G
damage was limited to property.
H H
I 21. A one-third discount is therefore appropriate for his plea and I
genuine remorse. The sentence for Charge 2 is reduced from 36 months to
J J
24 months. Further, I give 3 months’ reduction due to his full
K compensation. The sentence is 21 months. K
L L
Sentencing Principles — Failing to Surrender to Custody (Charge 3)
M M
22. The maximum penalty under section 9L(3) of Cap. 221 is 12
N N
months’ imprisonment. Although there are no specific guidelines, courts
O have consistently treated bail jumping as a serious breach of trust that O
undermines the integrity of the criminal process (HKSAR v Lee Man Chun
P P
[2022] HKDC 978).
Q Q
R
23. In the present case, the Defendant absconded for 13 R
months during the mention stage. His stated reason was to stay with his
S S
pregnant wife and support her until childbirth.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
24. I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. Applying a
C one-third discount for his plea, the sentence is reduced to 4 months. C
D D
Totality
E E
25. Applying the totality principle, the Court must ensure that the
F F
combined sentence is proportionate to the Defendant’s overall criminality.
G The two offences are distinct in nature but temporally and contextually G
connected within the same course of conduct. Where a separate charge of
H H
absconding is brought, the sentence should generally be made consecutive
I to the sentence for the substantive offence unless a very long sentence is I
imposed for the substantial offence itself, usually calculated in terms of
J J
years (HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai 盧錦輝 [2016] HKCA 94).
K K
26. I order that the 4 months on Charge 3 shall run consecutively
L L
to the 21 months on Charge 2. The total sentence is 25 months’
M M
imprisonment.
N N
O O
P ( E Yip ) P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 84/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1656 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 84 OF 2025
F F
G ------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I LAW FU WING Defendant I
------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge E Yip in Court K
Date: 7 November 2025
L L
Present: Ms. Elisa Cheng, Senior Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR.
M Ms. Amanda Li, Counsel instructed by Messrs. Tang Wong & M
Cheung Solicitors, assigned by D.L.A. for the Defendant.
N N
Offence: [1] Criminal intimidation (刑事恐嚇)
O O
[2] Conspiracy to commit arson (串謀縱火)
P [3] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause P
(無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押)
Q Q
R --------------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
---------------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
The Charges and Plea
C C
1. The Defendant faces three charges. Following plea
D D
bargaining, he has pleaded guilty to two charges as follows:
E E
(1) Charge 2: Conspiracy to commit arson, contrary to
F F
sections 60(1) and (3), 63(1), 159A and 159C of the
G Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The Particulars of G
Charge allege that on or about the 26th day of October,
H H
2022, in Hong Kong, conspired together with Yeung
I Chun Sing, without lawful excuse, to destroy or damage I
by fire one private car bearing registration mark
J J
TB7934, property belonging to XXX, intending to
K destroy or damage such property, or being reckless as K
to whether such property would be destroyed or
L L
damaged.
M M
(2) Charge 3: Failing to surrender to custody without
N N
reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of
O the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221). The O
Particulars of Charge allege that on the 3rd day of
P P
August, 2023, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted
Q Q
to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to
R
custody as should have been appointed by a court. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Facts Relevant to Charge 2 — Conspiracy to Commit Arson
C C
2. The Defendant was involved in a traffic accident on 25
D D
October 2022 with a vehicle driven by PW1. Although the matter was
E settled after the Defendant paid HK$25,000 to compensate for the damage, E
he remained resentful towards PW1.
F F
G 3. On the following night, 26 October 2022, the vehicle G
belonging to PW1’s father (PW2) and another adjacent car were found on
H H
fire in the car park of Tin Shing Court, Tin Shui Wai. The fire damaged
I both vehicles. The repair cost for PW2’s car was HK$35,000. The repair I
cost for the adjacent car was HK$39,977. The Defendant had paid
J J
HK$25,000 to PW1 as compensation before the present hearing. At the
K present hearing I am told that the Defendant has already transferred K
HK$49,977 into his instructing solicitors’ account ready to be paid out
L L
through the court to PW2 for HK$10,000 and PW4, the owner of the
M adjacent car, for HK$39,977. I now make an order as compensation to M
PW2 and PW4 accordingly.
N N
O 4. Police investigations revealed the use of flammable O
liquid containing heptane, cyclohexane and methyl cyclohexane,
P P
substances commonly found in paint thinners. A burnt metal can, gloves
Q Q
and cotton waste were recovered near the scene. CCTV footage showed a
R
person (later identified as Yeung Chun Sing, the co-conspirator) entering R
the car park at 9:40 p.m., setting fire to the victim’s vehicle, injuring
S S
himself in the process, and then fleeing.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
5. The Defendant was later arrested. He admitted that, due to the
C grudge arising from the earlier accident, he had conspired with Yeung Chun C
Sing and instructed him to set fire to the victim’s vehicle. The Defendant
D D
did not personally attend the scene but was the instigator of the offence.
E E
Facts Relevant to Charge 3 — Failing to Surrender to Lawful Custody
F F
G 6. The Defendant was granted bail pending proceedings. He was G
due to appear before the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court on 3 August
H H
2023 but failed to do so. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
I I
7. He remained at large for approximately 13 months until 3
J J
September 2024, he was re-arrested.
K K
8. The Defendant later admitted that he failed to surrender
L L
because he wished to stay with his wife, who had just become pregnant
M with their first child. M
N N
The Defendant’s Background
O O
9. The Defendant is 32 years old, born in Hong Kong, educated
P P
up to Secondary level 3. He is married with a 10-year-old daughter from a
Q Q
previous marriage and a 1-year-old son with his current wife. He was
R
working as a part-time van driver earning around HK$15,000 a month and R
was the sole breadwinner and main caregiver for his elderly mother.
S S
T
10. He has 10 previous convictions, but none similar to the T
present offences. His counsel submits that the present offences were
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
committed out of impulsive resentment rather than long-term criminal
C inclination. C
D D
11. He has spent over 14 months in remand and has reflected
E deeply during this period. He expresses remorse and wishes to reform for E
the sake of his family. Six letters from his wife, daughter, mother, and
F F
sisters have been tendered in support.
G G
Sentencing Principles — Conspiracy to Commit Arson (Charge 2)
H H
I 12. Arson is a grave and inherently dangerous offence carrying a I
maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR
J J
v Kung Pak Fu [2008] 2 HKCLRT 235 emphasises that, in densely
K populated Hong Kong, intentional fires—even those resulting only in K
property damage—carry potential for catastrophic harm. Heavy sentences
L L
are required for deterrence.
M M
13. Sentencing must, however, reflect the degree of risk,
N N
the extent of planning, and the motive behind the act. In this case, the arson
O was motivated by personal revenge arising from a traffic dispute. It was O
carried out by an accomplice instructed by the Defendant, using an
P P
accelerant in a public car park, which also caused damage to an adjacent
Q Q
car.
R R
14. Fortunately, the fire was contained quickly and caused no
S S
personal injury. The plan was unsophisticated, and the accomplice suffered
T
self-inflicted burns. There is no evidence of triad involvement or financial T
motive.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 15. Counsel refers to HKSAR v Yeung Chun Sing 揚振昇 [2023] C
HKDC 1845, arising from the same incident, in which the actual
D D
perpetrator received 20 months’ imprisonment after discount. In that case,
E the starting point was 33 months, reduced to 20 months for plea and E
mitigation.
F F
G 16. Reference is also made to HKSAR v Leung Man Chun (D3) G
[2022] HKDC 978, where the third defendant, who organised others to
H H
commit a similar arson involving two cars, received a starting point of 3
I years 3 months for conspiracy to commit arson. That case was aggravated I
by profit motive, the use of youth accomplices, and greater damage.
J J
K 17. The prosecution’s submission, upon referring to a line of K
decisions by the Court of Appeal1) decisions as stated in its letter dated 9
L L
October 2025 to this Court, is that the sentencing decisions at first instance
M M
are neither binding on, nor of any referential value for, courts of the same
N
level. I agree that this legal position is abundantly clear. N
O O
18. I take into account that the Defendant’s act was impulsive in
P nature. His role as instigator suggests that he had had more time to calm P
down but instead elected to ventilate his anger. I take a starting point of 36
Q Q
months’ imprisonment.
R R
Mitigating Factors
S S
T 1
律政司 訴 溫達揚 [2022] HKCA 1328, at para. 27; 香港特別行政區 訴 劉晉旭及其他人 [2025] 1 T
HKLRD 1363 at para. 51; 香港特別行政區 訴 陳彥宏及其他人 [2025] HKCA 605 at para. 43； 香港
U
特別行政區 訴 馮嘉文及其他人 [2025] HKCA 247 at para. 36 U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 19. The Defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, saving C
court time and public expense. He has fully compensated PW2 and PW4
D D
for the repair of their vehicles. There are supportive letters from family
E members showing strong prospects for rehabilitation. E
F F
20. I accept that this was not a triad-related or financially
G motivated act, but rather one of personal revenge and poor judgment. The G
damage was limited to property.
H H
I 21. A one-third discount is therefore appropriate for his plea and I
genuine remorse. The sentence for Charge 2 is reduced from 36 months to
J J
24 months. Further, I give 3 months’ reduction due to his full
K compensation. The sentence is 21 months. K
L L
Sentencing Principles — Failing to Surrender to Custody (Charge 3)
M M
22. The maximum penalty under section 9L(3) of Cap. 221 is 12
N N
months’ imprisonment. Although there are no specific guidelines, courts
O have consistently treated bail jumping as a serious breach of trust that O
undermines the integrity of the criminal process (HKSAR v Lee Man Chun
P P
[2022] HKDC 978).
Q Q
R
23. In the present case, the Defendant absconded for 13 R
months during the mention stage. His stated reason was to stay with his
S S
pregnant wife and support her until childbirth.
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
24. I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. Applying a
C one-third discount for his plea, the sentence is reduced to 4 months. C
D D
Totality
E E
25. Applying the totality principle, the Court must ensure that the
F F
combined sentence is proportionate to the Defendant’s overall criminality.
G The two offences are distinct in nature but temporally and contextually G
connected within the same course of conduct. Where a separate charge of
H H
absconding is brought, the sentence should generally be made consecutive
I to the sentence for the substantive offence unless a very long sentence is I
imposed for the substantial offence itself, usually calculated in terms of
J J
years (HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai 盧錦輝 [2016] HKCA 94).
K K
26. I order that the 4 months on Charge 3 shall run consecutively
L L
to the 21 months on Charge 2. The total sentence is 25 months’
M M
imprisonment.
N N
O O
P ( E Yip ) P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V