HKSAR v. TSE KOON KIT AND ANOTHER

DCCC 928/2025

[2026] HKDC 180

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 928 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

D1 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary" (Charge 1)  and a charge of "Failure to comply with requirement to produce proof of identity for inspection" (Charge 3). D2 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Possession of offensive weapons in a public place" (Charge 2).

Summary of Facts

2.  About 3:50 a.m. on 8 March 2025, Mr. Chong (PW1)  was a security guard on duty in the carpark shroff office at Kingsgate, No.178 Pau Chung Street, To Kwa Wan ("the Shroff Office").  He fell asleep and the door of the Shroff Office was left ajar.  His Samsung mobile phone was lying on the desk.  Suddenly, PW1 was awakened by some noise and saw a man running from the Shroff Office towards the carpark exit.  He also found his mobile phone missing.

3.  About 3:55 a.m. on the same day, PC 13182 (PW2)  and PC 23087 (PW3)  intercepted D1 and D2 for enquiry at the junction between Ma Tau Kok Road and Pau Chung Street.

4.  Upon search, PW1's mobile phone was found in D1's right front trouser pocket.  D2 was carrying a bag which contained 2 extendable steel batons (E1 and E2).  D1 also failed to produce his identity card for inspection at PW2's request.  As a result, PW2 arrested D1 for "Theft" and "Failing to produce proof of identity", whereas PW3 arrested D2 for "Possession of offensive weapons".

5.  Under caution, D1 admitted that he had stolen the mobile phone from the Shroff Office out of greed.  He claimed to have lost his Hong Kong Identity Card several days ago.

6.  Under caution, D2 claimed that he found E1 and E2 in a pile of trash somewhere in To Kwa Wan and decided to keep them for self-defence.  He explained that debt collectors were pursuing him to repay his debts.

Other evidence

7.  CCTV footage captured D1 and D2 walking towards the Shroff Office together around 3:52 a.m. on 8 March 2025.  D1 reached his arm inside the Shroff Office and took PW1's mobile phone.  D1 and D2 then fled together.  Both D1 and D2 identified themselves as the culprits depicted in the footage.

8.  PW1 identified the mobile phone found on D1 as his property.

9.  Government Chemist confirmed that E1 was a 29-cm spring-loaded steel baton, extendable to 65 cm, and E2 was a 21-cm gravity-operated steel baton, extendable to 54 cm.

Mitigation

D1

10.  He is 50 and has 26 conviction records, which included 14 "Theft" offences, 1 "Attempted burglary" offence, 1 "Burglary" offence and 1 "Robbery" offence.  His counsel Ms. Or informed me that D1 is single and resides with his mother (aged 74)  in a public housing unit.  Prior to his arrest, he was a part-time driver earning about $20,000 per month.  In mitigation, Ms. Or submitted that D1 committed Charge 1 in a moment of greed upon seeing the door of the Shroff Office left ajar.  His stealing act was unplanned and PW1's mobile phone was recovered.

D2

11.  He is almost 38 and has 12 conviction records, which included 3 violence-related offences.  His counsel Ms. Cheng informed me that D2 is single but has a daughter (aged 3)  with his ex-girlfriend.  In mitigation, Ms. Cheng submitted that in order to meet the increased expenses resulting from the birth of his baby daughter, D2 borrowed money from others.  Owing to the pandemic, he was unable to find enough work to repay his debts.  On the night in question, D2 intended to meet up with D1 for a late-night snack.  Since D2 was afraid of being attacked by debt collectors, he carried the batons with him.  He did not commit any offence with those batons.

Sentence

D1

12.  His criminal record is appalling.  He is also a repeated offender of theft-related offences including "Burglary" and "Robbery".  His most recent conviction record involved a "Robbery" offence, a "Theft" offence and 2 other driving offences[2], for which he was sentenced to a total of 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment in August 2023.  He was released from prison in October 2024[3] and committed the present "Burglary" offence in March 2025.  Being a recidivist and re-offending shortly after release are both aggravating factors. 

13.  The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment.  I am aware of the Court of Appeal's decisions in HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259 and HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000.  I consider a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment appropriate for Charge 1, and will increase it to 22.5 months to reflect the relevant aggravating factors.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D1 to 15 months' imprisonment for this charge.

14.  For Charge 3, I do not understand why D1 was charged under the Public Order Ordinance instead of the Immigration Ordinance[4], which only carries a maximum fine of $5,000.  He did not deliberately refuse to produce his identity card; he simply did not have it with him.  Charging D1 under the Public Order Ordinance seems to be out of proportion.  I will fine him $500 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month.

D2

15.  Extendable batons are by nature offensive weapons.  One does not carry them around for any purpose, even self-defence.  I find it hard to believe that D2 picked up 2 steel extendable batons in working condition from a pile of trash.  I have no doubt that he was up to no good carrying not just one, but two, when meeting D1 on the street in the early hours.

16.  D2's criminal record is not much better than D1's.  He has convictions of violence-related offences.  For Charge 2, I consider a starting point of 10.5 months' imprisonment appropriate and just.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D2 to 7 months' imprisonment for this charge.