HKSAR v. Kwok Kin Chuen

DCCC 930/2025

[2026] HKDC 1859

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 930 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He entered the residential portion of a building as a trespasser and stole a pair of trainers placed outside one of the flats.

Summary of Facts

2.Mong Kok Building is a mixed-use property situated at No.97 Mong Kok Road, Kowloon ("the Building").  Its 1^st to 3^rd Floors are designated for commercial use, whereas the 4^th to 21^st Floors contain residential flats.  Mr. Yiu (PW1)  resided in a flat on the 15^th Floor of the Building ("the Flat").

3.About 10:00 p.m. on 14 September 2024, PW1 saw his trainers (valued at $1,400; "the Trainers")  resting outside the Flat.  About 12:25 a.m. on 15 September 2024, PW1 was alerted by the motion sensor of the CCTV camera installed outside the Flat.  When he opened the door of the Flat, PW1 found the Trainers missing.

4.CCTV footage captured the defendant entering the common area of the 15^th Floor of the Building twice around midnight on 15 September 2024 and taking away the Trainers.

5.About 3:32 p.m. on 23 September 2024, PC 14788 arrested the defendant.  Under caution, he admitted stealing the Trainers.  He also claimed that he had discarded the Trainers as they were not his size.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is 58 and has 19 conviction records which involved 26 offences.  Of the 26 offences, 4 were "Burglary" and 2 were "Theft".  Defence counsel Mr. Leung informed me that the defendant is married with a son (aged 17).  His wife is a nurse earning about $28,000 per month.  The defendant currently suffers from auditory hallucination and is on psychiatric medication.  In mitigation, Mr. Leung submitted that in the present case, the defendant acted alone and did not use any tools.  He did not enter any residential unit in the Building.  The monetary value of the Trainers was relatively low.

7.The defendant has a long history of criminal convictions dating back to 1987, when he was 19 years old, but none were related to "Burglary" until 2006.  He was sentenced for 4 "Burglary" offences respectively in 2006 (24 months), 2010 (56 months for "Aggravated Burglary"), 2019 (20 months)  and 2022 (21 months).  In other words, he is a recidivist in burglary. 

8.The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment.  According to the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Suen Chi Wai [2015] 5 HKLRD 33, stealing from the common areas of a residential building may justify a lower starting point than from individual homes.  The defendant's status as repeat burglary offender, however, negates any benefit of a lower starting point.  Notwithstanding how the present offence was committed and the monetary value of the Trainers, I consider a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment appropriate and just.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 2 years.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment.