HKSAR v. CHOW WAN HI

DCCC 324/2023

[2025] HKDC 416

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 324 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

Background

1.  Mr Chow Wan-hi, the second defendant, is facing a charge of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. 

2.  It is alleged that Leung Chi-yung, (D1), and Mr Chow, on the 28^th day of July 2022, in Hong Kong, together with two persons unknown, having entered as a trespasser, a building known as “Siu Lo”, near lamppost number H2216, Tai Tong Road, Yuen Long, New Territories, stole therein, one cabinet, one screen, one shelf, 17 chairs, three decorations, and three trays[1].

3.  D1 pleaded guilty already, and Mr Chow pleads not guilty.  It is a joint enterprise charge, which means the charge elements include that Mr Chow acts together with other co-accused, for example D1, as part of a joint plan to commit the burglary; or Mr Chow agrees to commit the burglary with other co-accused.

4.  The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt; Mr Chow does not have any burden of proof and has the benefit of doubt.

The Evidence

5.  Under caution, Mr Chow admits, inter alia, that:

(a)  He knew a person called “Ah Yung” (D1), who asked him to transport something. Ah Yung arranged Mr Chow to meet together at the petrol station at Tai Tong Road around 9 pm on 28 July 2022. When he arrived at the petrol station, he parked his lorry on the roadside of Tai Tong Road, then Ah Yung and two other persons loaded certain furniture on to his lorry.

(b)  After the others fully loaded the furniture, Mr Chow was told to drive the lorry to Lau Fau Shan; then the others off-loaded the furniture on the roadside, Mr Chow left. He received $500 as remuneration. He knew nothing about the burglary.

6.  In court, Mr Chow elects not to give evidence and not to call any defence witness to exercise his rights.  Other than the above, there is no other direct evidence against Mr Chow.

The Analysis

7.  Judging from the record of the video recorded interview, the Court observes Mr Chow was very cooperative with the police.

8.  Mr McGuinniety acts for prosecution, who submits the Court should look at all the evidence as a whole, both direct and circumstantial, and draw inferences when in need.  The Court agrees.

9.  I consider the case as a whole and conclude that there is some evidence that Mr Chow might have involved in the burglary; but the prosecution fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either there was an agreement between Mr Chow and other co-accused concerning the burglary; or Mr Chow acted in concert with other co-accused in the burglary.

Conclusion

10.  As the prosecution fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a joint enterprise exists between Mr Chow and other co-accused; or Mr Chow actually involved in the burglary with other co-accused, the prosecution’s case must fail.

11.  It follows naturally that Mr Chow is acquitted and this is the verdict of the Court.