HKSAR v. Wong Muk Yim (also known as Huang Muyan)

DCCC 1277/2024

[2025] HKDC 1818

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1277 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Burglary". He broke into 2 residential flats and stole cash and miscellaneous properties from both premises.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

2.The flat situated at 14^th Floor, Tsung Nga Building, No.34 Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po ("Flat 1")  became vacant in 2023.  Mr. Chan's (PW1)  mother used to live there.  PW1 and his brother returned to Flat 1 occasionally to check on it.

3.PW1's brother visited Flat 1 on 1 April 2024 and found everything in order.  In the afternoon on 13 May 2024, PW1's brother informed PW1 that Flat 1 showed signs of ransacking and the main door lock had been damaged.  Cash in the sum of $2,000 also went missing.

4.On 15 May 2024, PW1 went to Flat 1.  He was unable to open the door since its lock was damaged.  The Police was alerted.

5.Upon arrival, police officers opened the door of Flat 1.  PW1 found signs of ransacking inside.  A kettle, a piece of casting resin[1] ("the Plaque")  and $2,000 in cash were missing.

Charge 2

6.About 10:00 a.m. on 15 May 2024, Madam Au Yeung (PW2)  left her home situated at Flat B, 14^th Floor, Cheung Hong Mansion, Nos.26-32 Cheung Sha Wan Road, Sham Shui Po ("Flat 2").

7.About 2:05 p.m. on the same day, PW2 returned.  She found the door of Flat 2 locked from the inside and saw an unknown person (later confirmed to be the defendant)  in her home.  The Police was alerted.

8.Upon arrival of the police officers, PW2 entered Flat 2.  She found signs of ransacking and pry marks on the living-room window frame.  Upon checking, PW2 found 7 ornaments, 8 strings of Buddha beads, 10 wrist chains, 1 silver bead, 2 watches, 5 pendants, 1 safe deposit box key, 2 mirrors, 1 comb, 7 brooches, 1 pair of earrings, 2 necklaces with pendants, 9 necklaces, 1 pair of sandals, 1 rucksack, 1 ring and 1 pair of fitness beads (valued at $37,172 in total)  missing from Flat 2.

9.A pair of slippers, a T-shirt and a bag, none of which belonged to PW2, were found in Flat 2.

Arrest and admissions

10.The defendant was arrested on 16 May 2024.  Upon search, the Plaque was found in his waist bag.  Under caution, he admitted having broken into Flat 1 and having stayed there for a few days since it was vacant.  He had stolen some money and the Plaque from Flat 1.  When he heard police officers knocking on the door of Flat 1 (on 15 May 2024), he climbed over to a flat in the adjacent building (i.e. Flat 2).  Afterwards, he changed into a pair of orange shoes and took away some jewelleries from Flat 2.

11.In his video recorded interview, the defendant repeated his earlier admissions. He added that he had sold the jewelleries stolen from Flat 2 in Sham Shui Po for $1,000.  The slippers, T-shirt and bag found in Flat 2 belonged to him.  He did not know PW1 or PW2.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.The defendant is 44 and has 22 conviction records, which included 4 "Burglary" offences and 3 "Theft" offences. Defence counsel Mr. Chan informed me that the defendant is single and unemployed. In mitigation, Mr. Chan submitted that the defendant had no plans to burgle Flat 2; he climbed into Flat 2 to hide from the Police. Mr. Chan urged this court to treat both offences as having been committed on the same day and accordingly, to afford the defendant the benefit of the one-transaction rule.

13.Regarding the defendant's immigration status, Mr. Chau for the prosecution informed me that at the time of his arrest in May 2024, he was a Form 8 holder. The defendant, however, once held a Hong Kong Identity Card (but not a permanent one). According to his criminal record, it appears that he has been in Hong Kong for over 20 years, although a substantial portion of that time was spent in prison or in Drug Addiction Treatment Centres. Neither Mr. Chau nor Mr. Chan was able to explain why and when the defendant became a Form 8 holder.

14.The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. The defendant being a repeated offender and having burgled 2 flats on the same day are plainly aggravating factors[2].

15.The defendant is a Form 8 holder. I do not know why he lost his Hong Kong resident status, but I do not find him belonging to the non-refoulement claimant category. Hence, I would not increase the starting point for each sentence on the basis of exploiting the hospitality extended to him by Hong Kong[3].

16.For Charges 1 and 2, I adopt a starting point of 39 months' imprisonment each. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence for each charge becomes 26 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 26 months' imprisonment for each charge.

17.Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 48 months' imprisonment appropriate for both charges. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence becomes 32 months. Hence, I order 6 months in Charge 2 to run consecutive to Charge 1, arriving at a total prison term of 32 months.