HKSAR v. GURUNG SUJAN

DCCC 1115/2025

[2026] HKDC 1208

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1115 OF 2025

----------------------------

----------------------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

1.  D1 is charged with one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210. The particulars of the offence allege that he and another person named Akbar Muhammad, that is D2, on 5 February 2025, in Hong Kong, having entered as trespassers part of a building known as Ching Chung Free Chinese Medicine Clinic No 1, Ground Floor, No 162 Tai Nan Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, stole therein cash of HK$4,000, one cash box, one padlock, one notebook computer, one camera, and two fruit knives.

2.  D1 pleaded guilty to the charge, admitted the relevant facts and is convicted accordingly. 

The Admitted Facts

3.  Ching Chung Free Chinese Medicine Clinic No 1 (“the Clinic”) was located at the Ground Floor, No 162 Tai Nan Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.  There were two entrances to the Clinic.  The main entrance at the front was secured with padlocks.  At the back of it was a backyard separating the Clinic from the back alley.  Between the backyard and the back alley, there was a wall with a metal gate which was secured with a padlock. 

4.  Shiu Wai Hung (“PW1”) was the manager of the Clinic.  At 5.30 pm on 4 February 2025, PW1 secured the main entrance and the rear metal gate before leaving.  Upon returning in the morning the next day, he found the rear metal gate having been prized open, and the padlock went missing.  PW1 then found signs of ransacking inside the Clinic, and the items as set out in the particulars of the charge had been stolen, the total value being about HK$11,000, none of which had been recovered. 

5.  It was later found out that D1 and D2 burgled the Clinic in the midnight of 5 February 2025 on two occasions, as captured by the CCTV cameras in the Clinic and its vicinity.  D1 and D2 were captured by the CCTV to be walking along the back alley back and forth between 2.10 am and 2.14 am on 5 February 2025.  Afterwards, they stopped thereat.  D1 acted furtively and he searched around the back alley using a phone as a torch.  Then D1 and D2 chatted for a while, and D2 took over a blue suitcase.  At 2.14 am, the CCTV cameras ceased to capture them as they left with their bicycles. 

6.  Later, D1 and D2 were captured by CCTV again to be walking along the back alley back and forth between 3.44 am and 3.58 am on the same day. 

7.  Also, D1 and D2 were captured by the CCTV cameras installed inside the Clinic to be there on two separate occasions that day, the first one for about seven minutes and the second one for about 95 minutes.  On the first occasion, at 2.15 am, D2 took away something from a drawer at the reception counter.  D1 and D2 were searching around the Clinic and left at 2.22 am.  On the second occasion, D2 entered the Clinic again at 3.47 am, and D1 entered again at 4.00 am.  They searched inside the Clinic.  In particular, between 5.10 am and 5.22 am, D2 used a large plier to break the padlock on the stolen standing donation box near the reception counter, then D1 and D2 together carried that standing donation box with them and left. 

8.  On 14 March 2025, D1 was arrested by Police Constable 11927.  Under caution, he admitted the offence by stating that, “My friend wanted to steal. He found me to keep a lookout at the scene.  He said he would give me HK$300 for reward after that.” 

D1’s Background

9.  D1 was born in 1994 in Nepal.  He has a Hong Kong permanent identity card.  He received education up to Secondary 4 in Nepal, and he was unemployed at the time of arrest.  He has a total of five previous criminal convictions, mainly gambling and no similar conviction to the current offence. 

Mitigation

10.  Mr Raffell, for D1, submitted a written mitigation, and he rightly accepted that there are sentencing guidelines for burglary of non-domestic premises.  The usual starting point should be 2½ years or 30 months’ imprisonment.  It is submitted that this conventional starting point is for cases with no aggravating or mitigating features, and is normally for a first offender, which the defence submitted that it should be the position here. 

11.  Since D1 pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, and he should therefore be granted the full discount of one-third for his guilty plea.  It is submitted that he was not the leader, and he just followed his friend to commit the offence.  Therefore, the defence invites the court to adopt the usual starting point of 30 months and reduce it to 20 months after taking into account his guilty plea. 

Sentence

12.  Burglary is a serious offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.  There are clear sentencing guidelines established by the Court of Appeal.  For a first offender of full age, the correct starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment, see: AG v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215. 

13.  Although D1 had a few previous criminal convictions but they are not similar to the current offence.  Mr Raffell for the defence submitted that there was no aggravating factor in this case, to which I could not agree. There was in fact an aggravating factor as the burglary was committed by two persons and more than that, as described above in the admitted facts, there revealed a certain degree of planning, as the burglars had been checking on the subject Clinic, and they went into it on two separate occasions the same day. 

14.  I am therefore prepared to enhance the usual starting point of 30 months by 3 months, and make it a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment for this case.  A full one-third discount would be given for D1’s timely plea of guilty.  The final sentence should be one of 22 months’ imprisonment.