HKSAR v. SZETO CHI KONG, KANDY

DCCC 906/2025

[2026] HKDC 213

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASES NO 906 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant is charged with one count of “Burglary”, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong. He pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the Summary of Facts. As a result, he was convicted accordingly.

Summary of facts

2.  The subject premises is a Chinese restaurant situated at Shop No. A, Ground Floor, Wo Yi Plaza, No. 26-30, Wo Yi Hop Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Restaurant”).  The main entrance of the Restaurant is secured with a key lock and an electronic roller shutter and the rear door is secured with a metal bar lock.

3.  At around 11 pm on 23 January 2025, the cashier of the Restaurant, Madam Pak, locked the drawers of the cashier register room before leaving the Restaurant.

4.  At around 6:15 am on 24 January 2025, Madam Pak returned to the Restaurant and found that the drawers of the cashier register room were opened and the following items were missing:

(a) 38 bags of one-dollar coins, totaling HK$3,800;

(b) 3 bags of two-dollar coins, totaling HK$600;

(c) 2 bags of five-dollar coins, totaling HK$400;

(d) 1 banknote of HK$1,000; and

(e) 1 transparent plastic box.

5.  It was also discovered that glass window of the rear door of the Restaurant was broken.  The repair costs was HK$3,000.  A report was therefore made to the Police.

6.  Upon investigation, the Police found that the CCTV installed outside and inside the Restaurant captured the defendant and another unknown male entered the Restaurant through the rear door at around 2:48  am on 24 January 2025.  The unknown male entered the cash register room and prized open the drawers with a crowbar while the defendant acted as a lookout outside the room.  They then took some money from the drawers and put the money into some plastic bags and a box.  They left the Restaurant at around 2:59 am.

7.  The defendant was arrested by the Police at his residence later on the same day.  Under cautioned, the defendant admitted that he burgled the Restaurant with a friend because he had no money to pay rent.

8.  During a video recorded interview, the defendant admitted under caution that he committed the burglary at the Restaurant as he needed money to repay his debts.

9.  The defendant now admits, at the material times, he together with another person, entered the Restaurant as a trespasser and stole from the Restaurant cash HK$5,800 and a plastic box.   

Mitigation

10.  The defendant is 57 years old and single.  He was born locally and received education up to secondary Form 2.  The defendant used to work as a delivery worker earning around HK$10,000 per month but was unemployed at the material time.

11.  The defendant has one previous conviction where he was convicted of a count of theft on 22 November 2024.  He was fined HK$2,000.

12.  In mitigation, defence submitted that the defendant is deeply remorseful and he committed the offence out of momentary greed.  He was fully co-operative with the Police after being arrested.  It was also submitted that though the defendant has a previous conviction but it was a relatively minor shoplifting conviction.

13.  All in all, defence asked the court to take a lenient view on the defendant and impose a lenient sentence.

Sentencing consideration

14.  The sentencing guideline for burglary of non-domestic premises is well-settled.  If there is no aggravating feature, the starting point is 2½ years’ imprisonment: HKSAR v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80.

15.  There is in fact one aggravating feature in this case, i.e. the defendant committed the offence with another person.  However, having considered all the circumstances of the case, including the value of the stolen property and the defendant’s light criminal record, the court is of the view that 2½ years, i.e. 30 months is the appropriate starting point for this case.

16.  The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to full one-third discount.  As a result, the defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.