HKSAR v. LIU HONGYUN

DCCC 1009/2025

[2026] HKDC 950

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1009 OF 2025

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  Mr Liu pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on 14 January 2025, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, having entered as trespassers part of a building known as Flat C, 9/F, Pearl Vista, No 9 San Lok Street, Sheung Shui, New Territories, stole therein cash of $600,000 Hong Kong currency.

Facts admitted by Mr Liu

2.  PW1 rented a two-room flat at Flat C, 9/F, Pearl Vista, Sheung Shui. There was a safe inside her room containing cash of $600,000, two watches, two rings, and two contracts.  The lock of the safe was broken and so the safe was not locked.

3.  PW1 sublet one of the rooms to PW2.

4.  On 14 January 2025, at about 10 am, PW2 left the flat for work.  At about 7 pm, he returned.  He discovered the iron gate was damaged, the wooden door was broken and the lock was left on the floor.  PW2 reported the matter to PW1.  PW1 returned to the flat and found cash of $600,000 missing from her safe which displayed signs of ransacking.  The case was reported to the police.

5.  CCTV footage showed that on 14 January 2025, between 2:33 pm and 2:35 pm, Mr Liu and an unknown male (“UM”) were inside the flat; that Mr Liu was standing at the door of PW1’s bedroom while UM appeared to be searching a safe placed on the windowsill next to the bed.  The CCTV footage captured the images of someone yelling, “It must be there, come on, hurry up!”; it also captured the images of UM appearing to have taken away something before leaving with Mr Liu.

6.  Mr Liu and UM departed from Hong Kong at Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point together at 3:15 pm the same day.

7.  On 31 January 2025, Mr Liu was arrested at the arrival hall of Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point.

8.  Later the same day, during a VRI, Mr Liu stated that he lived in Jiangxi and came to Hong Kong through Liantang Port on 13 January 2025 and was in Sheung Shui on 14 January 2025 until he left Hong Kong on the same day.

9.  Mr Liu now admits the particulars of the charge.

Criminal record

10.  Mr Liu has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Antecedents

11.  Mr Liu is a Chinese Two-way Entry permit holder aged 41 (39 at the time of the offence), educated to primary 2 level in the Mainland.  He had been employed as a cook from age 17 until time of arrest.  Mr Liu is married.  He has two sons from a previous relationship.  The family live in Jiangxi Province.

Mitigation

12.  Ms Idy Chiu of solicitor assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Liu.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

13.  Mr Liu was born in Jiangxi.  His family members are dependent on him. They are his father (72, a retired farmer), mother (70, bedbound because of traffic injuries since 2024), wife (34, housewife), and two sons (13 and 8, students).

14.  Mr Liu has been the breadwinner of the family.  Before the offence, he worked as a chef in Shenzhen earning RMB6,000 per month, out of which he contributed RMB4,000 for family living expenses.

15.  In October 2024, with intent to take a flight from Hong Kong to Jakarta for a job starting after Chinese New Year of 2025, Mr Liu obtained a Two-way Permit.

16.  On 13 January 2025, a friend (“F”) asked Mr Liu if his Two-way Permit was still valid and if he wanted to earn some quick money.  F told Mr Liu to go to Sheung Shui with him where they could get something valuable.

17.  Mr Liu, out of a desire to treat his mother’s injuries with quick money, agreed to go to Sheung Shui with F on the material day.

18.  On 14 January 2025, they arrived at the subject flat.  F broke open the gate and wooden door.  After they entered, F told Mr Liu to search for valuables in a bedroom with a bunk bed.  Mr Liu did not find anything of value.  So he stood at the door of the bedroom while F continued to search for something at the windowsill next to the bunk bed.  Shortly afterwards, F appeared to have taken something before leaving with Mr Liu.

19.  They then left Hong Kong together through Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point.

20.  During the incident, Mr Liu did not take away anything from the flat. He did not know what F had taken.  Mr Liu had not received any reward from F. Mr Liu could not locate F after return to the Mainland.

21.  On 31 January 2025, the third day of the Chinese New Year, Mr Liu came to Hong Kong in order to catch a flight on the next day to Jakarta.  He was arrested.

22.  Mr Liu has a clear record in Hong Kong.  The strongest mitigating factor is Mr Liu’s earliest indication of plea.  After his arrest, his family has been in severe financial difficulty and has been relying on Mr Liu’s cousins for daily living.

23.  Mr Liu wishes to convey the following message to the court: “I am very remorseful for my foolish conduct to commit this offence to make quick money. I feel very ashamed to the Country, to Hong Kong and to my family.”

24.  The Court of Appeal in R v Wong Ming, Cr App 372 of 1992, laid down guidelines for sentence in a case of burglary of non-domestic and domestic premises where the defendant is a first offender of full age.  The Court set the respective starting points at 2 ½ years’ and 3 years’ imprisonment.

25.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 is authority of longstanding for the proposition that the normal starting point for sentence for a case of burglary of domestic premises for a first offender of full age is 3 years’ imprisonment.

26.  The burglary in this case took place in a flat of a residential building in an afternoon of a weekday when most people were normally out for work. There was no one inside the flat when Mr Liu and the unknown person committed this case.  Although they may have encountered some other residents when they took the lift going up and down to the flat, there was no evidence to show their intention to cause any harm to those residents they met.

27.  Although the iron gate and wooden door were broken and damaged when Mr Liu and the unknown person committed this offence, there was no evidence showing the use of heavy instrument or equipment.

28.  Ms Chiu asked the court to extend leniency to Mr Liu by not treating any aggravating circumstances as part of sentencing.

29.  Mr Liu has a clear record.

30.  Ms Chiu reminded the court to give Mr Liu the usual 1/3 sentencing discount for his early plea.

Sentence

31.  There are two aggravating factors in this case: (i) joint enterprise; and (ii) Mr Liu came to Hong Kong specifically to commit the offence.

32.  I thought about whether Mr Liu was the ringleader between the two burglars based on the utterance recorded by the CCTV which logically should have come from Mr Liu pushing the searcher (UM) along.  However, even if it was Mr Liu who did the yelling, they could be equal partners without one dominating over the other.

33.  Although substantial property to the tune of $600,000 has been stolen, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the offence was targeted at substantial premises (see HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, CACC338/2007, para 15).  So I will not treat this as an additional aggravating factor.

34.  I take as the initial starting point the usual 3 years’ imprisonment in a case such as this one for a first offender of full age.  For the aforementioned two aggravating factors, I enhance the starting point by 4 months.

35.  Mr Liu pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

36.  As an act of mercy, I will discard any decimal places in the calculation of the sentence in terms of months.

(Mr Liu, please stand)

37.  The sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.