HKSAR v. Chi Wing Yee Coey and Others

DCCC 1538/2025

[2026] HKDC 910

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1538 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The 3 defendants have pleaded guilty to, in total there are 3 charges.  The 1^st charge against the 3^rd accused, the offence of burglary; the 2^nd charge against all 3 accused, another offence of burglary, and finally, a 3^rd charge against the 3^rd accused only of knowingly misleading police officers.

2.The offence is -- the first 2 offences, charge 1 and charge 2, occurred at a flat on the Caribbean Coast at Tung Chung and that flat consisted of a master room and a guest room.  The master room was sealed, was secured with a lock and key.  PW1 was the landlord and held the key of those premises and in fact was resident at the premises.

3.The victim, PW1, rented the guest room to the 3^rd defendant from June 2024 to May 2025.  The 3^rd defendant was permitted to access the flat but not the master room.  On 24 October 2024, PW1 went to Australia and the master room was left locked.  When the victim, PW1, returned on 5 December 2024, she discovered from the 3^rd defendant, the master room had been broken into and a safe had been taken from the living room.  There was a hole in the door to the master room at the time.  From that master room, jewellery and cash of some over $333,000 was taken.  The safe that had been taken from the living room containing six sets of title deeds to properties in the Mainland and Hong Kong. 

4.The 3^rd defendant was then questioned about how this had occurred and he gave two witness statements to the police on 6 December and 12 December respectively.  The gist of those, that the 3^rd defendant said he had met some unnamed woman online, given her a duplicate key to the flat and an Octopus card which allowed her to gain entry and he claimed that the woman has stolen the items from the flat.  This of course was a pack of lies.

5.The police were able to disprove this account given by the 3^rd defendant and implicate both the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd defendant by way of CCTV footage of the building, the use of the Octopus entry records and admissions made by the respective defendants and simply put, what had happened was that the 3^rd defendant had initially broken into the master room, taken the items from there and the evidence showed that he had pawned the watch and bracelet stolen from the master room on 28 November 2024 and 30 November 2024 and he had conducted that burglary sometime between 30 October and 5 December 2024.

6.The 1^st defendant also admitted in respect of the second burglary, that the 3^rd defendant had involved her in the scheme to take the safe and claim insurance and the 1^st defendant would have been told there would be some 30 per cent of the insurance money recovered would have been given to her.

7.The 2^nd defendant was also involved in the second burglary.  He had driven to the flat on 29 November and on 30 November, himself and the 3^rd defendant and the 1^st defendant had taken the safe in the flat and put it in a box and the 2^nd defendant had later taken that safe.  And the 2^nd defendant broadly confirmed what the 1^st defendant said, that he had assisted the 1^st defendant and the 3^rd defendant in the burglary.  He said the 3^rd defendant had then recruited him to assist them and help facilitate his entry into the flat.

8.As far as the details are concerned, we can see from this that the 3^rd  defendant committed the first burglary alone, the second burglary is a joint enterprise by all 3 defendants, and finally, the 3^rd charge committed again by the 3^rd defendant alone where he knowingly misled the police.

9.As far as the defendant’s backgrounds are concerned, the 1^st defendant is now aged 20 years old.  Shis born in Hong Kong, educated in Hong Kong.  She is currently in a Training Centre. She had initially been sentenced to be detained in a Rehabilitation Centre on 23 July 2021 and later was sentenced to Training Centre on 20 November 2025 for using a false instrument.  She is currently serving a Training Centre Order.

10.The 2^nd defendant is, on his antecedent statement is said to be 36 years old, again born in Hong Kong.  He has one previous conviction which is not relevant to this for possession of dangerous drugs.  He is a university-educated person, graduated from the University of West Scotland with a degree in psychology in 2008.  He has been employed as a restaurant worker and various other employments as well such as delivery worker.

11.The 3^rd defendant who it would appear on the face of the facts to be the instigator of all the offences here is currently, according to his antecedents, aged 32.  He has been employed as a kitchen assistant in the past.  He is a person of clear record, had been granted bail in these proceedings.

12.Given the submissions that were made in respect of the defendants, I obtained reports on the 1^st defendant as required to do because she is currently in a Training Centre.  I have received a Training Centre Report from her. 

13.As far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned, that said about both psychological and psychiatric matters and I obtained both psychological and psychiatric reports on him.

14.As far as the 1^st defendant is concerned, I will briefly deal with the report on her.  The report on her, the Training Centre Report, says that general assessment of behaviour and attitude of her says she is “Suitable for continued or for detention in a Training Centre.  Her overall performance so far at the Training Centre has been fair”. The defendant herself has expressed, both in the report and in mitigation, her preference for a short period of custodial punishment.

15.As far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned, dealing with the reports on him, the psychological report does illustrate the difficulties he faces.  His remorse is described as “superficial” and his risk of reoffending is described as “moderate”.  The conclusion that is reached on the defendant, who is a first-time offender, is that he did show understanding of his current responsibility.  He was impressed to be an impulsive and reckless individual with limited insight into his emotional distress.  It said his chronic drug use might also have contributed to his weak impulse control and poor decision-making abilities.  However, there was no strong evidence indicating the current offence is related to drugs.  His risk of reoffending with similar offences was assessed to be moderate due to his limited insight and contributing factors to his offending behaviour and emotional distress.  Psychological treatment and continuous social services were recommended to facilitate his rehabilitation focusing on his emotional distress and improving his coping strategies and preventing relapse.

16.Now turning to the approach to sentencing, all 3 defendants face charges of burglary of a domestic premises.  It is common ground that the starting point for sentence for a domestic premises burglary after trial by a person of clear record would be a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.  That is the starting point for sentence for a person of clear record after trial.  That can be subject to of course mitigating factors and aggravating factors.  The most clear aggravating factor in respect of the burglaries, for the second burglary, is that it is a joint enterprise burglary, all 3 defendants involved.

17.As far as the first burglary is concerned, that is the burglary into the master room, there are no clear aggravating factors, although the amount of money, the financial value of the items stolen puts it into a more serious category, I consider, some $333,000.

18.It is submitted in mitigation that the burglary of these premises, being a divided property where the 3^rd defendant was resident is not a classical domestic premises burglary and that the court could take that into account when determining the starting point for all 3 defendants, that the 3^rd defendant was, as I said, resident to the premises.  It was known that the victim, PW1, would not be present at any time these burglaries took place, which as I say, takes it out of the normal category, domestic premises burglary.  It is up to the court, of course, in its discretion to consider to what extent that is a mitigating factor in determining the starting point.

19.Also in determining the starting point for sentence, I have regard in respect of the 1^st defendant her youth and the effect of any prison sentence or rehabilitate sentence would have her on her existing imprisonment.  And secondly, in respect of the 3^rd defendant, there is the mitigating factor of his clear record and also in respect of the 2^nd defendant that he has a non-similar criminal record involving only one previous offence.

20.I take all those factors into consideration and I deal firstly with the 1^st  charge which concerns the 3^rd defendant alone.  This is a domestic premises burglary by him at a time when he was resident in the premises that he clearly accessed the master room which was locked.  I am going to take a starting point for that at 33 months, reduce it to 22 months’ imprisonment having regard to his plea of guilty.

21.On the 2^nd charge, I take into account again the location of the burglary in the living room, and secondly, the fact that this is a joint enterprise burglary.  I will deal firstly with the calculation of the starting point for sentence in this offence for the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants.  I will take a starting point for sentence on that offence at 30 months’ imprisonment.  Having regard to the fact of a joint enterprise burglary, I will increase that to 33 months.  I will bear in mind, taking into account the defendants’ pleas of guilty, I shall reduce that sentence to 22 months’ imprisonment for the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants on the 2^nd charge.

22.As far as the 1^st defendant on the 2^nd charge, I bear in mind what was said and I take into account the operation of the Training Centres Ordinance but I still believe in respect of the 1^st defendant that she is better off in rehabilitative environment.  I shall simply make an order that she be detained in a Training Centre for that offence.

23.As far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned on the 3^rd charge, I simply take a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment, reduce that to 2 months’ imprisonment for his plea of guilty. 

24.Now as far as the sentences is concerned, I must determine the overall sentence for the 3^rd defendant, he faces 3 charges.  I shall deal with that as follows:  I had considered initially to increase the defendant’s sentence by a further 10 months to 32 months’ imprisonment, however, that does not take into account, I believe, the existence of the fact he is a man of his age with a clear record.  I must reflect that in his sentencing.  What I shall do in fact is as far as the 2^nd charge is concerned, I shall simply order that 6 months of that be served consecutively to the 1^st charge and the 3^rd charge be served concurrently to the 1^st and 2^nd charges.  This leads to an overall sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment for the 3^rd defendant which I believe reflects both his clear record and also the psychological and psychiatric difficulties that he faces and will face in the future.

25.So the overall sentence will be as follows:  The 3^rd defendant will be sentenced to a total of 28 months’ imprisonment; the 2^nd defendant to a total of 22 months’ imprisonment and the 1^st defendant to the Training Centre order.