HKSAR v. Fong Ka Chun

DCCC 560/2025

[2025] HKDC 1599

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 560 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.The defendant was charged with 2 counts of burglary.

Plea

2.The defendant pleaded guilty to both, admitted the facts and was convicted.

Summary of facts

3.The said location was a Shopping Centre.  The opening hours were between 10 am and 11 pm every day.  Visitors were not permitted to stay in the Centre outside its opening hours.

Charge 1

4.On the material day at midnight, a tenant made a complaint to the security that a male was inside the Centre.

5.The CCTV footage revealed that a male wearing a face mask entered the Centre via the fire exit on the 2^nd floor, wandered around and eventually left.

Charge 2

6.On the following day at midnight, the fire alarm was activated.

7.The CCTV footage revealed that the same male entered the Centre via the fire exit on the 2^nd floor, wandered around and eventually left.

Arrest

8.6 days later, the defendant was intercepted in the street.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was the male in the said CCTV footage. He were to the Centre to see if he could take away any valuable items but did not take anything in the end.

Background of the Defendant

9.The defendant, aged 37, was single and unemployed.

10.The defendant had 14 previous convictions with 1 similar. 

11.The defence by relying on the case HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000,submitted the present case being one of opportunistic burglary and asked for a lower starting point.

Consideration

12.In sentencing, I have considered the following points:-

(1)  The facts of the case involving 2 counts of non-domestic

burglary.

(2)  The mitigation put forward.

(3)  Defendant having 14 previous with 1 similar.

13.For non-domestic burglary, there has been tariff being 2 1/2 years’ imprisonment. 

14.As mitigated, I noted the case of HKSAR v Sim Wa Wing.  I accepted the present facts fell within the category of opportunistic burglary.

Starting Point

15.I adopted a bit lower starting point of 2 years and 3 months.

Sentence

16.On guilty plea with 1/3 discount,

Charge (1): 18 months imprisonment

Charge (2): 18 months imprisonment

Totality

17.Having considered the totality principle, I ordered that 4 months of Charge (2)  be served consecutively to Charge (1).

18.Altogether, the defendant was sentenced to 18 months plus 4 months, being 22 months’ imprisonment.