HKSAR v. Leung Yau Sing

DCCC 1436/2025

[2026] HKDC 1253

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1436 OF 2025

----------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------

1.The defendant (D) was charged with burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. He pleaded guilty, admitted the facts and was convicted accordingly.

FACTS

2.At the material time, Hon Dynasty Construction Company Limited (“VTC”) was responsible for the renovation work at G/F (the “Site”) of the multistorey Shek Pai Wan Integrated Work Centre.  The Site of about 10,000 square feet in size hosted about 20 workers daily which were all known to Ms Cheung of VTC.

3.At 2045 hours on 7 June 2025, Ms Cheung via a mobile CCTV application noticed D, a trespasser, packing copper pipes into a red-white-blue woven bag, loading it onto a trolley on which there was another full red-white-blue woven bag, moving around the Site and left towards the rear door of which no night time security personnel were stationed.  Ms Cheung reported the case immediately.  However, by the time Police and Ms Cheung arrived the Site, D had already left and seven copper pipes were confirmed missing.

4.D was later arrested on 8 June 2025.  Under caution and in a subsequent video recorded interview, D admitted gained unauthorized access to the Site and stole the copper pipes therein, took a taxi near Shek Pai Wan, conveyed the pipes to Spring Garden Lane, Wan Chai and sold the pipes for $1,500 to an unspecified shop. 

5.The trolley used by D was found abandoned nearby on Yue Kwong Road.  The stolen property worth $6,000 could not be recovered.   

BACKGROUND/MITIGATION

6.The defendant aged 49, single, prior to the offence he lived with his mother and worked as an irregular casual cleaner earning about $4,000 per month.

7.The defendant has a long drug abusive history and has been to DATC 4 times.  He has 29 previous convictions since 1991, all together 31 counts: including 9 counts of burglaries, 14 counts of theft/attempt theft, 2 counts obtain pecuniary advantage by deception and 1 count of fraud.  He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment in 2023 for burglary committed in 2022 against a fruit shop (DCCC 1011/2022).  Shortly after release from jail, he committed two theft offences and was sentenced to a total of 13 months’ imprisonment on 29 October 2024. Again, shortly upon release from jail on 10 April 2025, he committed the present case.

8.The burglary itself did not involve any aggravating feature.  However, the defendant acknowledged that his previous similar records and committed the offence shortly after his release from prison amounted to aggravating factors. The defence urged for leniency and full 1/3 discount.  The defendant is willing and prepared to compensate the victim company out of the money seized by the Police.

Sentence

9.The customary starting point of sentence for non-domestic burglary is 30 months’ imprisonment.  Such burglaries will involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point. 

10.Hon Yeung JA, as he then was, said in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338 & 339/2007 a case of burglary of non-domestic premises:-

“The proper starting point for sentence in a case of burglary of non-domestic premises is 30 months’ imprisonment (see Rv Wong Man unreported, CACC 372/1992). The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as: (1) the offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous conviction of similar nature, and (6) the offender commits multiple offences.”

11.While the usual starting point for burglary of a non-domestic property is 2.5 years imprisonment, however, the defendant here is a professional burglar, he made use of a trolley and woven bags to commit the offence.  The defendant is also a recidivist.  He started committing burglary in 1991, he has been convicted for 9 counts of burglary and another 17 counts related to dishonesty, he committed the present burglary again shortly after release from jail.  I am of the view that for his recidivism the starting point should be enhanced by 9 months.  

12.The defendant has indicated his guilty plea from an early stage, he is entitled to the full 1/3 discount.  D is willing and prepared to compensate the victim company $1,489, for this I reduced his sentence by 1 month. I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor.  With D’s consent, the $1,489 seized from D to be handed over to the victim company as compensation.

Order

25 months imprisonment