HKSAR v. LI PENG

DCCC 581/2025

[2025] HKDC 1996

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 581 OF 2025

------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------------

1.  In this case the defendant Li Peng is convicted of one count of “Burglary”, one count of “Going Equipped for Stealing” and one count of “Loitering” upon his plea and admission of facts.

Third Count: Loitering

2.  The first offence that took place was the 3rd charge: “Loitering with intent to Commit Arrestable Offence”.  In the evening between 21 and 22 November 2024, the defendant was seen wandering around in Tsz Tin Tsuen of Tuen Mun from 8 pm to 1 am, staring at the houses while walking on the pavement. His movements were captured by the CCTV installed by the residents. 

3.  The movement record of the Immigration Department showed that the defendant came to Hong Kong as a visitor at 1442 hours on 21st day of November 2024.  He left on 22 November at about 1058 hours. 

First count: Burglary

4.  The offence that took place next was Charge 1.  Sometime in the evening of 2December 2024, the resident of a village house in Tsz Tin Tsuen, Tuen Mun hung her bag at the door of her 1st floor apartment.  The next morning she found her bag had been mysteriously moved to somewhere near the window of the enclosed balcony.  She found $3,500 cash and a cat-shaped gold ingot inside the bag missing.

5.  The movement record revealed that the defendant came to Hong Kong as a visitor at 1542 hours on 1 December and left at 1231 hours on the 3rd. 

Second Count: Going Equipped for Stealing

6.  At 0015 hours on 9 December 2024, the defendant was stopped by the police in Tuen Mun after for shining a torch at the village houses.  The police found on the defendant a pair of labour gloves, a 5-cm long torch.  Cash of $1,032 and a cat‑shaped gold ingot. 

7.  The ingot was subsequently identified as the one missing from the victim bag.  He was therefore charged with the “Burglary” (Charge 1).  By reason of his behaviour of the labour gloves and torch he was carrying, he was also charged with the second count of Going Equipped for Stealing. 

8.  The movement record revealed that he came to Hong Kong on 8th day of December 2024. 

Discussion

9.  Of all the charges, the most serious one was Burglary, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years.  There is clear sentencing guideline handed down by the Court of Appeal. In the absence of aggravating factors, such offence warrants a starting point of 3 years imprisonment.

10.  The defence contended that it was an opportunity crime.  I found such contentions difficult to reconcile with the facts of the case.  The offence took place on a 1^st floor flat.  It would take someone to go up to the 1^st floor to transfer the bag from the back of the main door to the window and then took the stuff from inside the bag.  The concept of opportunity crime, as I understand it, refers to the situation where an passer-by took an unplanned advantage of the inadvertence of the victim.  In this case an opportunity crime situation would be when the door was left open and the property was visible from a casual glance by a passes-by.  This obviously was not the case. 

11.  The defendant had come to Hong Kong on three occasions.  He managed to commit at least one offence on each of the occasions.

12.  The defendant was a casual worker.  He made about $4,000 a month.  He had no connection to Hong Kong.  He came to Hong Kong to visit and he stayed each time for no more than two nights. 

13.  All these facts led to the inevitable conclusion that the defendant came to Hong Kong for the purpose of committing crimes.  This is an aggravating factor.  So I adopt a higher starting point of 4 years. 

14.  In respect of the second offence (Going Equipped for Stealing), the maximum sentence is 3 years.  In the present case, I take into account the fact that the defendant came to Hong Kong to commit burglary.  In the circumstances, I would adopt a starting point of 1 year. 

15.  For the 3rd count, the maximum sentence is 6 months.  His loitering was for a specific purpose for finding a target to commit burglary.  So I adopt 4 months as a starting point. 

16.  These offences all took place in the same area but on different dates. Strictly speaking, they are individual offences, the sentences for which should run consecutively.  Bearing in mind of the Totality Principle, I would order that the 3rd count of loitering with intent to run concurrent with the 2nd count and the 1st count, but the 2nd count to run consecutive to the 1st count. In all, the starting point would be 60 months. 

17.  The most important mitigation is that he plead guilty.  The Court of Appeal has direction that the people who pleaded guilty should be given at least one third discount. 

18.  The defendant is aged 33.  He was born in Hunan and his education was up to primary school.  He worked as a waiter in a hotel and then in a mahjong parlour in Zhuhai as a casual worker.  The offence is so serious that personal circumstances in the present case carried little weight. 

19.  So in accordance with the Court of Appeal direction, I will order the sentence to be reduced to 40 months to run immediately.