香港特別行政區 訴 唐浩元

On 6 October 2026, Mr Justice Li Wan-tang in the Court of First Instance handed down judgment in HKSAR v Tong Ho-yuen [2026] HKCA 1790, granting the applicant leave to appeal against sentence. Mr Li Cho-yee, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, acted for the applicant; the respondent was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Ms Lee Sze-yin.

The applicant, a 30-year-old hospital telephone operator with no prior convictions, pleaded guilty at the District Court to two counts of attempted robbery and one count of going equipped for stealing. On 24 January 2025, Deputy District Judge Tang Siu-hung imposed a total sentence of six years' imprisonment after a one-third discount for the guilty pleas.

The facts were straightforward. On 28 June 2023, the applicant followed a woman into a building, pushed her into a stairwell, and demanded HK$200,000 while brandishing a 20cm pair of scissors. When she said she did not have that much, they rode the lift down together and he let her go. Shortly afterwards, he entered a Thai massage parlour, threatened a staff member with a 30cm knife, and demanded cash. He fled when told she had no money and realised CCTV had captured him. The next day, police stopped him on the street and recovered both weapons. He admitted in caution that he owed HK$700,000 in gambling debts.

The applicant did not challenge the starting points or sentences for Counts 1 and 3. He challenged only the six-year starting point for Count 2 and the overall six-year total.

The Court held that:

(1) Whether the Thai massage parlour qualifies as "private premises" within the meaning of Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610 is reasonably arguable. The parlour was on a ground floor and open for business at the time. Under HKSAR v Lam Hoi (CACC 105/2016), "private premises" does not capture every commercial premises; the place must be one not generally open to the public, with a degree of privacy and security. A shop like a convenience store, open to all, does not qualify. The judge considered the question whether a Thai massage parlour, even when trading, falls on the "private" side of that line to be one worth the Court of Appeal resolving (§6).

(2) Whether the total sentence of six years (equivalent to nine years after trial) is manifestly excessive, given the facts and the applicant's clean record, is also reasonably arguable (§8).

Leave to appeal was granted on both grounds.

For practitioners prosecuting or defending armed robbery cases involving commercial premises, the threshold question of whether the venue is "private" within Mo Kwong Sang remains live. A massage parlour, a hotel, or a similarly semi-private business may attract a six-year starting point only if the Court of Appeal ultimately holds it qualifies. Until then, expect sentencing arguments to focus on the character of the premises and the level of public access at the time of the offence.