HKSAR v. YU SING YU

DCCC 887/2025

[2026] HKDC 562

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 887 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleads guilty to Burglary, contrary to Section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The particulars of offence alleged that on 29 January 2025, the Defendant having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as House No. 4, No. 51 Shek Wu San Tsuen, Ma Sik Road, Sheung Shui, New Territories, stole therein some red packets containing cash of $6,800 Hong Kong Currency, one pendant, one tablet computer and one jewellery box.

Amended Summary of Facts

2.  Ms. CHAN Ka-po (“CHAN”)  resided at the address as particularized in the charge, in which a motion sensor CCTV camera was installed. CHAN left her house with her family for a trip to mainland China on 14 January 2025.

3.  At around 6 am on 29 January 2025, CHAN received a message notifying her that the CCTV detected movement inside her house. CHAN checked the CCTV footage remotely and saw an unknown person ransacking her house, she called her sister to check on her house, who found the main door locked but an unlocked window was left ajar, the matter was reported to Police.

4.  The CCTV captured that between 4 a.m. to 9 a.m. on 29 January 2025, Defendant walked around inside CHAN’s house with a flashlight, entering 2 bedrooms repeatedly. At about 4:39 a.m., Defendant walked out from the master bedroom holding a red jewellery box in his hand.

5.  CHAN returned to Hong Kong on 9 February 2025. She confirmed that a red jewellery box together with a gold pendant valued at HK$17,000, some red packets containing cash of HK$6,800 and a tablet computer valued at around HK$2,000 had gone missing. She suffered a loss of around HK$25,800.

6.  Police subsequently found the empty red jewellery box, an MTR agreement for payment of fare with Defendant’s name and HKID number written, a business card bearing Defendant’s name inside House No. 3, which was next to the burgled house. CHAN recognised the red jewellery box as her property.

7.  Defendant was arrested on 6 March 2025. A fingerprint lifted from the frame of a mosquito net inside the window of the guest bedroom was confirmed to match Defendant’s fingerprint.

Mitigation & Sentencing Considerations

8.  The Defendant was born on 13 December 1983 in mainland China, he is currently aged 42. He completed Form 3 education in Hong Kong. He is divorced and currently in a relationship with his girlfriend and has no children. At the time of offence, he was living alone and had been unemployed for about 2 months. He had been working as a warehouse worker for 3 years before he became unemployed, earning about HK$19,000 per month, he used to give HK$2,000 to $3,000 to his retired mother to support her living.

9.  Counsel informed this Court that Defendant lived next to the burgled house at the time of the offence, he entered the burgled house through the window and stole therein as he was in need of money after unemployed for 2 months. The burglary was opportunistic and took place when the occupants were not in the house. The value of the stolen property though not low, was not extremely high either. Defendant has expressed remorse in his mitigation letter for causing loss to the victim. Defendant acknowledges his wrongdoing and urges for leniency.

10.  I accept the burglary took place when the occupants of the house were not there, no one was subjected to violence though the house was trespassed for some 5 hours from 4 a.m. to 9 am. But on the other hand, I note that CHAN was alerted early in the morning at 6 a.m. by SMS message and saw through CCTV surveillance that her house was ransacked by an unknown male, the worries and anxiety resulting therefrom cannot be undermined, especially when she was away from home and outside Hong Kong at that moment.

11.  Except the empty jewellery box, all stolen properties were not recovered. Apart from monetary loss, the sentimental value attached to the lost pendant, the inconvenience and the time spent to have the lost tablet computer replaced and restored is difficult to quantify, not to mention the frustration caused to CHAN and her sister to report the matter to Police and the time spent to assist in investigation. Furthermore, there is no offer or attempt to restitute the victimized neighbour up till this moment despite the remorse expressed.

12.  Defendant’s first conviction was for an offence involving dishonesty, he was put on probation for 12 months when he was then just under 17 years old. He was convicted of Aiding and Abetting in Dealing with Property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence and was given a suspended sentence about 8 years later. His recent conviction in 2025 was one of gambling for which he was fined.

13.  In HKSAR v. Lau Ping, [2004] 3 HKLRD 565, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the appropriate starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years imprisonment. I have considered the full circumstances of the case, Defendant’s first 2 convictions were over 18 years ago, his recent conviction was of a different nature and relatively minor, there are no other aggravating features calling for enhancement of sentence on top of the usual 3 years starting point, nor are there any special mitigation factors justifying reduction of sentence except for his guilty plea. 

14.  Defendant is entitled to the customary one third discount for his guilty plea, he is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.