HKSAR v. RAN DONGDONG

DCCC 221/2025

[2025] HKDC 1893

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 221 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Ran pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Particulars are that he, on 3 August 2024, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as 8^th Floor, Nos 8-10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan Ho, stole therein cash of $8,000 Hong Kong currency and one watch.

Facts admitted by Mr Ran

3.  The subject building in Nos 8-10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan Ho, was a 9-story tenement building.  It had no lift, no security guard; and the entrance was not equipped with a lock.  There were scaffoldings outside the building.

4.  PW1 resided in a flat (“the Flat”)  located on 8/F of the building with her family.  The residents also occupied the rooftop of the building.

5.  On 3 August 2024, at about 7:15 am, PW1 left the Flat while leaving behind $8,000 cash and a Vacheron Constantin watch (valued $50,000)  in 2 drawers in the bedroom of the Flat.  PW1 locked the main door behind her but she did not close a window of the living room.

6.  At about 11:15 pm when she returned, PW1 found the window ajar with the window grille damaged and opened.  The cash and the watch were gone.  She reported the case to the police.

7.  CCTV installed at the stairwell of the building shows footage of Mr Ran walking to and from the rooftop between 7:35 pm and 8:03 pm on that day. Police viewed this footage.

8.  In the afternoon of 6 August 2024, police spotted Mr Ran in Mong Kok. As Mr Ran was suspected to be involved in the burglary, he was followed.  Mr Ran visited a shop called “IN WATCH” in Sino Centre, Mong Kok.  Police eventually intercepted Mr Ran for enquiry in Mong Kok at 5:35 pm.  Not long, Mr Ran was arrested for burglary. Upon search, the Vecheron Constantin watch was recovered from Mr Ran’s right trousers’ pocket.

9.  On the next day, during a cautioned VRI, Mr Ran stated that he went to the shop called “IN WATCH” to replace the battery of the watch.

Criminal record

10.  Mr Ran has a clear record.

Antecedents

11.  Mr Ran is aged almost 31 (29 at the time of the offence), a Mainland resident educated to primary level there.  He was a casual renovation worker prior to arrest.

Mitigation

12.  Mr Jeffrey Sham of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Ran.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.  Mr Ran is married with a 4-year old daughter.  His parents divorced early and have no contact with him.  His grandparents are elderly.  He is the sole breadwinner of his family.  Mr Ran resided in Guizhou and came to Hong Kong on 1 August 2024.  Mr Ran has been working as a renovation worker (casual labour)  since 2022, with a monthly income of about RMB8,000.

14.  The sentence after trial for an adult first offender in a burglary of domestic premises case is 3 years’ imprisonment: R v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988 and HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565.

15.  In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338 & 339/2007, the Court of Appeal indicated that aggravating factors include:

(a)  The offence was carefully planned and skillfully executed, involving the use of heavy tools or equipment;

(b)  The offence was committed by two or more persons;

(c)  The target was large premises and involved substantial property;

(d)  The offender is a professional burglar, not an opportunist;

(e)  The offender has a record of convictions, especially for offences of a similar nature; and

(f)  The offender committed multiple offences.

16.  It was submitted none of the above aggravating factors is present in this case.

17.  It was further submitted that since the stolen watch has been recovered, the sole financial loss to the victim would be cash of $8,000.

18.  Defence has already made compensation of $8,000 through the intermediary of the police to PW1 on 30 October 2025.  Mr Sham relied on HKSAR v Poon Hung (transliteration) CACC 91/2020 to seek further sentence reduction.

19.  Mr Sham submitted on behalf of Mr Ran two mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Ran himself and his wife.  The contents generally are that Mr Ran committed the offence out of momentary greed; that he is regretful for bringing harm to his family; that he apologizes to the victim and is willing to make compensation; that Mr Ran was the economic pillar of the family; because of what happened to him, his wife has now to go out to work leaving the care of her young daughter to Mr Ran’s aged grandparents.  The letter writers asked for a chance be given for Mr Ran to start afresh and for a lenient sentence so Mr Ran could return home earlier and pick up the family responsibility again.

20.  Mr Sham asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of Mr Ran.

Sentence

21.  Burglary of domestic premises normally calls for a sentence after trial of 3 years’ imprisonment even for a first offender.  This is the starting point that I shall adopt.

22.  Despite a number of searching questions to Mr Sham who dutifully sought instructions from Mr Ran before answering them, I have been unable to be sure that Mr Ran came to Hong Kong specifically to commit the present type of offence.  Therefore, the sentence will not be enhanced on this ground.

23.  Something needs to be said about the compensation mechanism that has occurred in this case.  Before plea was formally taken today, PW1 was still a potential witness.  Any attempt to actually pay her compensation before today may be regarded as improper.  If there was a genuine intention to compensate, the most that could be done was to inform the prosecution of such intention. It would then be for the prosecution to decide if PW1’s views as to compensation should be sought at that early stage.  In any event, no compensation should be made before plea is formally taken.

24.  Mr Ran pleaded guilty to the offence in good time.  He shall be entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount.

25.  I note that the stolen watch has been recovered; and that PW1 has been fully compensated for the stolen cash.  Despite the fact that the window grille was damaged, I believe that it would still be justified if I were to grant Mr Ran 2 more months’ discount after the 1/3 reduction.  I will do that.

26.  There are no other mitigating factors that will warrant another sentence reduction.

(Mr Ran, please stand)

27.  The sentence for Mr Ran is 22 months’ imprisonment.