HKSAR v. QIN RUIHENG

DCCC 15/2026

[2026] HKDC 1097

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 15 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant is charged with one count of attempted theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200.

2.  The Particulars of the Offence alleged that the defendant, on 1 August 2025, on the MTR train compartment at MTR Prince Edward Station, attempted to steal from a Madam Ho Wai-lam.  He pleaded guilty and admitted the relevant facts and was convicted accordingly.

The Admitted Facts

3.  At around 7:18 pm on 1 August 2025, Madam Ho Wai-lam (PW1)  boarded a MTR Central-bound train in Cheung Sha Wan Station travelling to Tsim Sha Tsui.  She stood in the middle of the train compartment with her left hand holding her handbag containing a wallet (valued at HK$4,000), one iPhone (valued at HK$12,000), an earphone case (valued at HK$1,500)  and an electronic book reader (valued at $1,000).

4.  At around 7:23 pm, the train stopped at Prince Edward Station.  PW1 felt her handbag moving, and she saw the defendant standing next to her with his left hand inside her handbag.  PW1 screamed and the defendant immediately retracted his hand. 

5.  A report was subsequently made to the police and the defendant was eventually arrested.  In the subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant, under caution, admitted, among other things, that he entered Hong Kong from Futian Checkpoint at around 6 pm on the same day (i.e. 1 August 2025).  At that time, he was taking the MTR from Jordan intending to go to the Disneyland, but was travelling in the wrong direction.

6.  The defendant was a Chinese two-way permit holder.

The Defendant’s background

7.  The defendant was born in Guangxi, China, in 1974, and is now 52 years old.  He has high school education and is unemployed prior to the offence.  He is single, with no fixed abode.  He has no previous criminal conviction in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

8.  In addition to the background information as said, the defence added that the defendant is a divorcee, and is now living with his son aged 30 years old.  It is said that he was a salesperson prior to this offence, and had been so since 2023, earning about 5,000 RMB per month. It is submitted that the defendant has a clear record, and he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity showing genuine remorse.

9.  It is also submitted that this offence was committed out of the defendant’s momentary greed.  It was not sophisticated and it was not a planned operation by a syndicate.  Instead, it was just an opportunistic act by the defendant alone. 

10.  Eventually, no property was stolen, and the victim suffered no loss.  There was no confrontation, threat or physical harm caused to the victim at the time of the offence.  It is accepted that this kind of offence attracts immediate custodial sentence, but the court is invited to be as lenient as possible.

Sentence

11.  For pickpocketing cases, the Court of Appeal has set down clear sentencing guidelines, that is, a starting point of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment is normally appropriate for a first offender without aggravating features.  See: HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 at paragraph 9.  There also identified by the Court of Appeal certain aggravating features, including the commission of the pickpocketing offence in a place where the public is at particular risk, such as crowded places like the MTR.  See also the case HKSAR v Liu Lin Feng CACC 206/2011, submitted by Mr Wei for the prosecution, at paragraphs 47 and 48, where the Court of Appeal discussed about the “international element”, that is the culprit coming from Mainland to commit the subject offence in Hong Kong.  See also HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng CACC 238/2005 at paragraphs 14 and 26, concerning aggravating factors for this sort of offence, in particular for committing the offence in a crowded area and the international element.  Those principles are clearly applicable in this case.

12.  I do not forget the fact that this is an attempted theft and the victim eventually suffered no loss.  But at the same time, I do not lose sight of the fact that, had it not been the victim’s alertness, quite obviously, the defendant would have completed the offence by taking away the property or at least part of it from the victim’s handbag.

13.  In view of the circumstances of the commission of the offence, in particular the fact that the defendant was acting alone and the victim eventually suffered no loss, as well as the defendant’s previous clear record, I adopt an initial starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, which is the lowest in the sentencing band as suggested in the authority which I just quoted.  As said, there are two aggravating factors in this case.  First, it was committed in an MTR train compartment, and second, the defendant being a two-way permit holder committed the subject offence on the very same day he came to Hong Kong.  For each of those two aggravating factors, I enhance the initial starting point by 3 months, making it a total enhancement of 6 months. The starting point shall therefore become 18 months’ imprisonment.

14.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. I shall give him the usual one-third discount.  The final sentence that I impose on the defendant should be 12 months’ imprisonment.