HKSAR v. Wong Ka Chun

DCCC 29/2026

[2026] HKDC 1577

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 29 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty today to a single charge of burglary which occurred on 3 August 2025 at a premises in To Kwa Wan in Kowloon.  The premises themselves was a shop on the ground floor of a building in To Kwan Wan which was undergoing renovation work.  Normally the shop would have been secured by a combination padlock.  It would appear on the day of the burglary, the workers who had been conducting the renovation work on that day left at about 7:30 in the evening on 3 August without securing the premises with the combination lock.

2.There was a CCTV camera capturing the vicinity and environment of the shop and it captured the defendant at just before 10 o’clock in the evening entering the shop, wearing a safety helmet, and as a result of that the case was reported to the police.  Police attended within 15 minutes. 

3.Defendant was found in the premises holding a red plastic bag and a green nylon bag.  The contents of the bags were yellow electric wire, a grinding machine with a battery, total estimated value of around $1,500.  Defendant at the time claimed to be a worker but it was clear that he was not, so he was arrested for attempted burglary at the time, and the defendant at that time said he was going to leave the premises and the defendant agrees today and admits today that having entered that shop as part of building he entered as a trespasser and stole and attempted to steal therein.

4.Those facts have been admitted.  I have convicted the defendant of the offence for which he is charged.  The defendant’s antecedents show he is aged 41 at this time.  He has 3 previous convictions, all drug-related dating back to 2002, the last conviction being in 2016 when he received a 14-week sentence.  He was released custody in 2016 and has not committed an offence or been in custody since that time.

5.The personal circumstances of the defendant as advanced in mitigation is that he is 41 years old, he is divorced, resides with his 62-year-old mother.  I have seen letters of recommendation from both the defendant and his mother.  He is the sole caregiver to his mother, she says he is of assistance to her.  Defendant was working in construction renovation earning about $30,000 per month prior to his arrest.

6.The mitigation put forward by the defendant puts forward the following propositions for the court.  Firstly, the defendant acted alone when committing the crime.  He said he committed the offence on an impulse.  He entered the premises because they were unlocked and it was an opportunistic crime, similar it is said in mitigation and in submission, to a walk-in thief rather than professional criminal.  Defendant did not use any tools to pry open or force his way into the scene at the time of the offence.  There is no allegation that violence was used or effective violence was used.  The defendant only committed one offence at the time, and finally, the scene was a shop space under renovation that classifies it immediately as being a non-domestic premises but it had certain similarities to other cases where there has been a departure from the normal guideline of a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.  That is to reflect the fact that the premises were unoccupied, were under renovation and were not secured.

7.I think and looking at all these factors in determining the starting point for sentence, the normal starting point for sentence for a burglary committed in a non-domestic premises for a person of clear record after trial would be a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.  I have been referred to a number of authorities which show that in different circumstances departure from that starting point can be used by the court.

8.The major mitigation factor in respect of the starting point for sentence in this case is the fact the premises were unsecured and under renovation and it would appear, despite the defendant wearing a construction worker’s or renovation worker’s helmet, that it was a form of opportunistic burglary at the time.  Having regard to that, I will take a starting point in this case of 24 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 16 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  That will be the sentence of the court.