HKSAR v. TJHIN RICKY

DCCC 1200/2025

[2026] HKDC 715

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1200 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary committed on 4 March 2025 at a ground floor flat in the Lei Yue Mun area of Kwun Tong which he entered and stole a key pouch which contained an Octopus card and two keys.

2.  More details of those facts are that the victim, who is described as PW1, lived alone on the ground floor flat and she was in the bedroom of the flat around 8:26 am when she heard a noise and in fact it was the defendant who had entered the premises and then entered the bedroom where the victim was located.  They apparently had a conversation, which PW1 said she would report the matter to the police if he did not leave, and took photographs of the defendant with her mobile phone.  When the defendant had left the flat, it was found that the key pouch had been taken and together with an Octopus card which had about $300 credit on it and some keys.

3.  Defendant was arrested, in fact on the next day, on 5 March 2025.  He admitted stealing the card, the Octopus card out of greed and the key pouch and Octopus card and keys were found in his home on a search.

4.  In a further recorded interview, the defendant said the door to the flat was unlocked and he entered thinking there was no one inside, took the pouch which was next to the cabinet, had intended to take any electrical items, presumably so he could sell them, but he could not find any.  He had spent the credit already on food that was on the Octopus card and he admitted that he in fact entered the flat as a trespasser and stole the items set out in the charge.

5.  Defendant has no similar convictions.  He has five previous conviction records involving minor offences, such as assault, possession of dangerous drugs and false accounting. 

6.  In terms of the defendant’s mitigation, he is aged 33 now, was born in Indonesia in 1992, came to Hong Kong in 2006.  He has been married in the past but was separated in 2023 and has a son.  The defendant resides with his elderly mother in a public housing unit in Yau Tong.  The defendant does have a trade as he has worked as a tattoo artist for some 10 years.  Apparently, he can earn a sum of up to $20,000 for that.

7.  The defendant puts forward also in mitigation that he is, through his mother, prepared to pay or repay the $300 credit that was taken from the Octopus card and I will make an order that that be done.  The defendant should be grateful to his mother for that, he obviously clearly has no money himself.

8.  I see this as a fairly spontaneous walk-in burglary.  There were no tools or equipment used.  The risk, of course, with such a burglary is that on confrontation with a person inside the premises, matters can turn very bad.  Fortunately, in this case that did not happen and defendant simply left the premises when he was found.  I found there is some mitigation in the rather low level of burglary that actually occurred and the fact the family of the defendant is prepared to repay some money.  I also note the defendant has been in custody, it would appear, since his arrest in 2025.

9.  It is common ground and well known that the starting point for sentence for a domestic premises burglary where there is a plea of guilty and the defendant is of a clear record, the normal starting point would be one of 36 months’ imprisonment.  That of course can be subject to enhancement if there are aggravating factors and reduction if there are some mitigating factors.

10.  I have already set out the simplistic nature of this burglary.  I do not identify any aggravating factors in this case. 

11.  As far as the mitigating factors, there is of course the plea of guilty, which is the defendant is entitled to one-third discount from any starting point.  Secondly, the willingness for compensation to be paid, and thirdly, the general nature of the crime where this is simply a walk-in into a domestic premises and the defendant leaving when he as was discovered.

12.  Taking this overall, I will take a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment for this case which will be reduced to 22 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

13.  I will make an order that the defendant pay compensation to PW1 of $300.  I understand that will be paid forthwith.