1. The defendant is charged with one count of “attempted arson with intent”, contrary to sections 60(2) and (3), 63(1) and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 2. The prosecution case is that on 18 November 2019 near the junction of Nathan Road and Jordan Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, the defendant, without lawful excuse, attempted to damage by fire property belonging to himself or another, being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, and being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered. 3. The prosecution called 2 witnesses- Acting Sergeant 7720 (“PW1”) and exhibit officer DPC 10518 (“PW2”). 4. In a nutshell, PW1 testified that he and his colleagues had been dispersing a crowd of protesters on Nathan Road in the small hours of 18 November 2019. At about 2:12 am, he saw the defendant trying several times but failed to set light to a petrol bomb with a lighter. He subdued the defendant in the nick of time before he attempted again. He seized the petrol bomb in question as well as other exhibits. He searched the defendant’s backpack and found a pair of goggles and a head wrap therein. At about 2:53 am, PW1 handed over the defendant, the defendant’s backpack and the other exhibits to PW2 for custody. Later in the police station, PW2 found an orange lighter inside the big compartment of the defendant’s backpack and seized it as exhibit. 5. The defendant did not testify and called no evidence at trial. During cross-examination, it was put to PW1 that the defendant had been with other protesters at the time and the petrol bomb was passed to the defendant by one of the protesters. No sooner had he got hold of the petrol bomb than he was pushed to the ground and subdued. The defence case was categorically denied by PW1 who maintained that the defendant was alone by himself and there were no protesters around him or in his vicinity. 6. There is no other independent evidence of what happened on the night in question. 7. In order to fund a conviction, the prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard. Anything short of that would mean the defendant’s guilt is not proven to the required standard and the defendant will be acquitted. 8. Having considered all the evidence carefully, the court cannot be sure what PW1 described was what happened. The main considerations are as follows. 9. PW1 initially arrested the defendant for “possession of offensive weapon”. The defendant has submitted that the fact that the defendant was initially arrested for any offence other than attempted arson shows that PW1 did not then regard what the defendant had done amounted to attempted arson. 10. There was no attempt by anyone at the scene, including PW1, to recover the lighter allegedly used by the defendant. It is not the prosecution’s case that the orange lighter subsequently discovered by PW2 had been used by the defendant. Given his evidence, PW1 should know that both the lighter and the petrol bomb would be relevant evidence and should be seized as exhibit. There is nothing to suggest that PW1 had conducted any search for the lighter or requested his colleagues to look for it during the 40 odd minutes he dealt with the defendant at the scene. He only accounted for the fact that no lighter was recovered from the scene in his second statement which was made almost one year after the incident and just 2 days before the trial. 11. Whilst the defence case put to PW1 is not evidence as it has not been adopted by the witness and the defence has called no evidence in support of it, it does provide a perspective for the court to consider the prosecution evidence. If the defendant had just been holding the petrol bomb at the time, there would be no lighter and it would make sense to arrest him for “possession of offensive weapon”. 12. Turning to PW2, he said he later discovered the orange lighter inside the defendant’s backpack at the police station. This is inconsistent with PW1’s evidence as he had searched the backpack before handing it over to PW2 at the scene and there was no mentioning of finding any orange lighter inside. In fact, PW2’s testimony is inconsistent with his own witness statement wherein he described PW1 handling over 10 exhibits to him at the scene at 2:53 am and the last one being “an orange lighter”. Given the evidence, the court cannot be sure who is to believe and what to make of the orange lighter. 13. All in all, the court is of the view that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and is not sure if the event really happened in the way described by them. The prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s guilt to the required standard and the defendant is therefore acquitted.