HKSAR v. Chan Hin Shing and Another

DCCC 51/2026

[2026] HKDC 945

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 51 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Both the defendants have pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary of a non-domestic premises in Kwai Chung in the New Territories.

2.The premises themselves is the office of an engineering company located in an industrial building in Wah Sing Street in Kwai Chung, the office not being open to the public.  The office was contained on a lift lobby on the 17^th Floor, secured by a glass door with an electric lock and a wooden door with another electric lock.

3.The accountant of the company left the premises on 2 May 2025 and everything was locked up.  When she returned the next day, she discovered the glass door smashed, wooden door was prised opened.  A trolley containing four paper boxes of documents originally placed inside the office had been moved to the lift lobby outside the glass door.  The documents turned out to be expense vouchers and employment contracts.  No other property was stolen and the case was then reported. 

4.The repairing costs of the two doors is estimated at $60,000 in total and it is not covered by insurance so that is a loss to the company.  It would appear the defendants are not in a position to offer any compensation to the company.

5.As far as the arrest of the defendants, they were arrested as a result of what would appear CCTV capture of the burglary itself which occurred as a result of the police seizing the CCTV record.  The CCTV record, in fact, shows the burglary in progress showing both defendants arriving at the building, breaking the glass door on the 17^th floor, using screwdrivers to prise open the wooden door of the office, entering the office, placing boxes on a trolley and pushing the trolley to the lift lobby and then leaving the office without taking anything, leaving the premises at around about 3:30 in the morning of 3 May 2025.

6.Both defendants were subsequently arrested on the 3^rd and 4^th May.  They made various admissions which of course only evidence against themselves.  The 1^st defendant admitted he burgled the office with a man he called Sai Fei.  A screwdriver had been used to open, prise open the glass and wooden doors.

7.They had found boxes in the offices and realised they purely contained documents and were worthless and so they abandoned the burglary at that point.  They did conduct a further search of the office but they did not take anything.

8.The 2^nd defendant said that he had committed the burglary with a man he called Shing-jai, who of course is the 1^st defendant.  That is the summary of the burglary.  It is a burglary in a commercial premises, a non-domestic premises, where nothing was taken and was abandoned by both the defendants.

9.As far as the defendants’ backgrounds are concerned, the 1^st defendant, I am told, is aged 50 years old.  He has a quite extensive criminal record involving drugs and petty crime and a number of driving offences from about 2023 onwards.  The defendant appears to not have been involved in what I call serious crime from 2009 onwards.

10.As far as his mitigation is concerned, he said he was unemployed before his arrest, living alone in public housing.  He admits in the facts of the case admits that he and the 2^nd defendant were involved in a joint enterprise that broke the lock and gained entry to the premises.  The mitigation says that they were looking for something valuable but there was nothing valuable in the premises.  As a result no property had been stolen.  So other than the damage, it is put in mitigation there is no substantial loss to the victim company.  The 1^st defendant has shown a timely guilty plea.  He does admit it is a joint enterprise burglary. 

11.As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he is 48 years old.  Again, has an extensive criminal record involving petty crime and drugs.  He is currently separated from his wife, has an 18-year-old daughter, has worked as a part-time taxi driver prior to his arrest and he was last sentenced to imprisonment in November 2023 for attempted theft.

12.In mitigation, it was put forward, although the 2^nd defendant has convictions for offences of dishonesty, he has no similar convictions and has only had one conviction for dishonesty since 2010. 

13.The sentencing considerations which are correct in this case are set out in the mitigation of the 2^nd defendant that the burglary occurred at the office of an engineering company and must be seen to be a non-domestic premises where the starting point for sentence for a person of clear record after trial with no aggravating or mitigating features will be one of 30 months’ imprisonment.

14.Although this was a burglary where no property was stolen, damage up to $60,000 occurred and that could be seen as an aggravating factor.  No special equipment was used, except the use of screwdriver which is quite normal in a burglary.  The two aggravating factors would be a consideration and the damage to the property and the fact that both defendants were involved in a joint enterprise burglary.

15.As far as the calculation of sentence in this case, I consider that both defendants were involved in a joint enterprise burglary, they have both pleaded guilty.  They both have similar criminal records.  I see no reason to distinguish between them in the starting point for sentence here.

16.The initial starting point for a non-domestic premises burglary is of course 30 months’ imprisonment.  Insofar as there are aggravating factors here, I would add a further 3 months’ imprisonment to that figure.  Both defendants have indicated a plea of guilty from an early stage so they are entitled to a full one-third discount from that sentence.  That leads to a final sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment for each defendant on this charge.