HKSAR v. CHAN HO YIN

DCCC 702/2022

[2025] HKDC 1299

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 702 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal damage[1].

Facts

2.  All the details of the case have been set out in the Amended Summary of Facts dated 21 May 2025 as admitted by the defendant.  I am not going to repeat all the facts here.

3.  In gist, the building mentioned in the facts is a 3-storey village house on Lamma Island.   The main entrance of the building at the ground floor is always unlocked.  At about 2:00 am on 19 March 2022, the defendant opened the door of the main entrance, walked up to 1/F of the building and used a metal rod to strike the lock of the room on 1/F.  The occupier of 1/F was alerted and shouted out.  The defendant then walked downstairs to the G/F where he met the occupier of G/F.  The matter was reported to the police and subsequently the defendant was arrested at G/F.  

4.  As a result of the defendant’s act, the lock of the room on 1/F was damaged.  The value of the lock was $3,000.

5.  Under caution at scene, the defendant claimed that he used the metal rod to hit the door as he was frightened by some noise.  In subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated that as the entrance at G/F of the building was unlocked, he entered and went up to the rooftop.  When he walked downstairs, he heard a scream.  He was frightened and therefore struck the door of the room on 1/F with a metal rod. 

Mitigation

6.  The defendant is aged 25 and lives with his parents.   He is currently working as an Assistant Merchandiser earning $17,000 per month.  He has 1 previous conviction record for arson.  At the time of the offence, he had a clear record. 

7.  In mitigation, it was pointed out that the damage to the lock was limited, the defendant had made full compensation to the victim for the damage, and the defendant was remorseful. 

8.  It was submitted that with reference to the psychiatric reports available, the defendant was clearly under the influence of cannabis during the present offence as well as the arson case.  The defendant knew the impact of cannabis on him and the need to get rid of the drug taking habit if he were to keep the current job and live in a proper way.

9.  Given the circumstances of the case and the defendant’s condition, it was submitted that this Court might consider calling for reports to ascertain the latest condition of the defendant before sentencing.  It was also submitted that if this Court was minded to impose a custodial sentence, given the procedural circumstances of this case, this Court was urged to grant the defendant the usual 1/3 discount despite this case was set down for trial in the early stage.

10.  Before sentencing, probation officer’s report and community service order suitability report with random urine tests were called for.

11.  In light of the contents of the report, this Court was urged to impose a Community Service Order on the defendant with the recommended conditions.

Sentence

12.  There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of criminal damage.

13.  From the psychiatric reports available, the defendant was clearly under the influence of cannabis when he committed the present offence.  Probation officer’s report revealed that the defendant’s performance for the last probation order was just barely acceptable.  After the defendant graduated from the university in 2023, he faced difficulties in securing employment and thus increased his cannabis use.  As a result, the defendant was admitted to the psychiatric ward twice in 2023.  After discharge, the defendant was more cautious about cannabis.  After securing a stable job in April 2025, the defendant has steadily refrained from cannabis use.  3 urine tests were done, with 2 specimens showing no traces of drugs while the result of the third specimen is pending.  Initial screening of the last specimen indicated no drug traces.  The defendant wished to be given the chance to keep his present job. Case Medical Officer Dr. Wong deemed the defendant suitable for unpaid work under the Community Service Order.  Probation Officer is of the view that a second probation is not suitable and not recommended.  On the other hand, a Community Service Order with a medium duration, along with conditions for the defendant’s commitment to continue psychiatric treatment and receive drug related counselling is recommended.

14.  Given the defendant’s clear record, he was under the influence of cannabis at the time of the offence, he has fully compensated the victim for the damage to the lock, he has now got a stable job and refrained from taking cannabis, and he is willing to seek drug counselling and to continue to receive psychiatric treatment, I consider it appropriate to give him another chance by imposing a Community Service Order on him.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a Community Service Order of 120 hours with the conditions to continue to receive psychiatric treatment and to receive services from Counselling Centre for Psychotropic Substance Abusers (CCPSA).