HKSAR v. DAI YANFENG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1809/2025

[2026] HKDC 1481

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1809 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Both defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". They broke into an office at a construction site and stole copper wire and an electric drill.

Summary of Facts

2.  The burgled premises were a construction site located at Lot 1069, Anderson Road, Sau Mau Ping ("the Site").

3.  About 3:30 a.m. on 1 July 2025, Mr. Singh (PW1), a security guard of the Site, saw 3 men moving bags of goods through a damaged fence onto the pavement of On Yu Road. He immediately called the police.

4.  Upon arrival at the Site, police officers searched the area together with PW1.  They saw 2 men (later confirmed to be D1 and D2)  standing on On Yu Road.  Across the road, there were 32 bags of copper wire and a tool box containing an electric drill.

Arrest

5.  D1 and D2 ran away when the police officers approached them.  The police officers gave chase.  About 4:05 a.m. on the same day, D1 was apprehended approximately 400 metres away from the spot where the police officers first saw the 2 suspects.  He was hiding behind a container.  Upon arrest and under caution, D1 remained silent.

6.  About 4:48 a.m. on the same day, the police found D2 hiding between 2 containers at an adjacent construction site.  Upon arrest and under caution, D2 remained silent.

7.  In his video recorded interview, D1 claimed that he was at the Site to seek shelter and to sleep because it was raining.  In his video recorded interview, D2 claimed that he was looking for water to wash his hands when he was intercepted by police officers.  He admitted that he went to the Site together with D1.

Other evidence

8.  CCTV footage of the Site captured 2 persons, whose clothing matched that worn by D1 and D2 at the time of their arrest, moving bags of goods between 3:36 a.m. and 3:45 a.m. on 1 July 2025.

9.  Examination of their mobile phones showed that D1 and D2 had contacted each other via WeChat the night before their arrest.  Furthermore, before his arrest, D2 had sent someone via WeChat photographs depicting bags of copper wire which looked like those stolen from the Site.

10.  Mr. Mak, manager of the Site, confirmed that the 32 bags of copper wire and the tool box containing an electric drill (valued at $30,000 in total)  were properties belonging to the Site.  They were stored on the 2^nd Floor of the Site's office.

Mitigation

D1

11.  He is 48 and has a clear record.  His solicitor Mr. Ng informed me that D1 is single and resides with his 3 siblings in Shenzhen.  Prior to his arrest, D1 ran a street stall earning about RMB4,000 each month.  He would contribute RMB1,000 to his aged parents, who do not reside with him.  In mitigation, Mr. Ng submitted that D1 committed the present burglary offence due to financial hardship.  All stolen properties were recovered; no one was injured or frightened.

D2

12.  He is 50 and has a clear record.  His solicitor Mr. Leung informed me that D2 is divorced with 2 children (aged 19 and 14).  His daughter is a first-year university student, and his son is in Secondary 1.  They are now looked after by D2's cousin.  D2 also resides with his elder brother (aged 63), who is mentally retarded.  Prior to his arrest, D2 was a factory worker earning about RMB4,000 per month.  Mr. Leung relied on the same mitigating factors as those raised on behalf of D1.

13.  Time and again, the courts in Hong Kong have made it abundantly clear that financial difficulties, however serious, do not constitute mitigating factors for committing a crime.  Since the prosecution has not indicated otherwise, I presume that D1 and D2 entered Hong Kong lawfully.  Nevertheless, it is apparent that they came with the intention of committing crimes.

14.  The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. Although they were not equipped with tools or professional burglars, it is obvious that they had a plan, however primitive, regarding which premises to target and what property to steal.  D2 had even sent someone photographs of bags of copper wire.

15. Bearingin mind the above features, I would increase the starting point for both D1 and D2 to 33 months' imprisonment[1]. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With their timely guilty pleas,I sentence them each to 22 months' imprisonment.