HKSAR v. KWONG CHUN LUNG

DCCC 943/2025

[2026] HKDC 941

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 943 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Kwong pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that he, on 7 February 2025, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Room 103, Wah Choi House, Tin Wah Estate, Tin Shui Wai, New Territories, stole therein cash of $15,000 Hong Kong currency and cash of 12,000 Yuan Renminbi.

Facts admitted by Mr Kwong

2.  PW1 (a lady aged 71)  and her daughter resided at a flat known as Room 103, Wah Choi House, Tin Wah Estate, Tin Shui Wai.

3.  On 7 February 2025, at about 8 am, PW1 left the flat after locking the wooden door and metal gate.

4.  PW1 returned at about 7:30 pm, and found the padlock previously on the metal gate lying on the floor.  The metal gate was unlocked, and the wooden door was pried open.  She found the flat in a ransacked state.  She discovered HK$15,000 and RMB12,000 Yuan missing.  She reported the matter to the police.

5.  The footage of the CCTV installed near the flat entrance showed Mr Kwong wearing white gloves and face mask and with a transparent plastic bag over his head was tampering with the metal gate with a set of skeleton keys at 5 pm but he failed to gain entry; that he returned at 5:45 pm with a wrench to try gain entry without success; that at 6:14 pm, he returned again with a pair of hedge shears and this time he managed to enter the flat.  The CCTV footage showed he exited the flat at 6:20 pm.

6.  On 9 February 2025, police intercepted Mr Kwong outside his residence in Wah Yau House, Tin Wah Estate.  Under initial caution, Mr Kwong admitted that on 7 February 2025, he used a spanner and a pair of shears to break into the subject flat and stole 20,000 to 30,000 dollars inside.  Mr Kwong was immediately arrested for burglary.  Under reminded caution, Mr Kwong stated that he committed the burglary because he had no money to spend.

7.  Mr Kwong now admits the particulars of the charge.

Criminal record

8.  Mr Kwong has 18 previous convictions one similar with 4 others being theft-related convictions.

Antecedents

9.  Mr Kwong is aged 53 (52 at the time of the offence), educated to F2 level.  He was employed as a casual warehouse worker before arrest.  Mr Kwong is single.  He lived with his mother in public housing in Tin Shui Wai at the time of arrest.

Mitigation

10.  Mr Brian Tsui of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Kwong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

11.  Mr Kwong worked as a casual warehouse worker earning around $10,000 a month.

12.  Mr Kwong’s mother (80)  is in court to give him support.

13.  Mr Kwong has a number of convictions including burglary, attempted robbery and theft.  His last prison term was handed down in 2007.

14.  Burglary of domestic premises attracts a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The seriousness of the offence lies in there being always the possibility of confrontation with the occupant who will be subject to extreme fright when a total stranger invades his privacy: HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338.

15.  The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as: (1)  the offence is carefully planned and skillfully 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: HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, CACC 338/2007, para 15.

16.  It was submitted since the burglary/attempted robbery convictions took place more than 25 years ago, and the last conviction of theft was in 2007, the court may place less weight on them.

17.  It was acknowledged that Mr Kwong showed a degree of perseverance in committing the crime.

18.  The use of gloves and balaclava also shows a degree of planning and sophistication.

19.  On the other hand, there was no actual trauma of confrontation caused to the occupants of the premises.  This may be a mitigating factor: HKSAR v Suen Chi Wai [2015] 5 HKLRD 33, para 11.

20.  The court is reminded to give the full 1/3 discount to Mr Kwong for his timely guilty plea.

21.  Mr Tsui submitted on behalf of Mr Kwong a mitigation letter written in Chinese by Mr Kwong himself.  The contents generally are that Mr Kwong committed the offence because of greed and financial reason; that he will not re-offend.  Mr Kwong asked for a chance for reform and a lenient sentence so he may re-unite with his 80-year-old mother early.

22.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Tsui after taking instructions submitted that the skeleton keys used were just Mr Kwong’s[1] home keys and that Mr Kwong[2] had forgotten how he came to be in possession of the wrench and the pair of hedge shears.

Sentence

23.  The last dishonesty-related conviction was recorded in 2007.  I shall not hold his past criminal record against Mr Kwong.

24.  I shall adopt the usual starting point in this type of case of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The offence was aggravated by Mr Kwong’s recalcitrance in committing the offence with increasing sophistication of tools and equipment. For this reason, the starting point is enhanced by 3 months.

25.  I thought about whether the use of those tools and equipment made Mr Kwong a professional burglar.  In the end, I decided against it as Mr Kwong wasn’t very competent as a burglar by his failing twice to gain entry into the premises.

26.  It was a matter of pure luck that during the invasion of the premises in the late afternoon of a Friday, Mr Kwong was not confronted by either PW1 or her daughter returning home.  I do not regard the lack of confrontation as a mitigating factor.

27.  Mr Kwong pleaded guilty in good time.  He shall be entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

(Mr Kwong, please stand)

28.  The sentence is 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.