DCCC461/2025 HKSAR v. ZHU SHAN
DCCC 461/2025
[2026] HKDC 406
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 461 OF 2025
————————
HKSAR
v
ZHU SHAN 祝山
————————
Before:
His Honour Judge Tam in Court
Date:
4 March 2026
Present:
Mr Kwong Cho Yan Simon,Counselonfiat,for HKSAR
MrTsui Ho Chuen Brian, Counsel instructed by Messrs Kwok, Ng & Chan,assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for defendant
Offence:
Attempted burglary （企圖入屋犯法罪）
————————————————
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
————————————————
1. Mr Zhu pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Attempted burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. Particulars are that he, on 30 October 2024, in Hong Kong, attempted to enter as a trespasser a building known as No 10 Big Wave Bay Road, Shek O, with intent to steal therein.
Facts admitted by Mr Zhu
2. On 29 October 2024, Mr Zhu entered Hong Kong at Lo Wu Check Point as a visitor on strength of his two-way permit.
3. The subject private residential premises is a house located at No 10 Big Wave [Bay] Road, Shek O (“the House”). On 30 October 2024, at about 7:30 am, whilst working at the tennis court of the House, PW1, a domestic helper, heard someone talking and saw Mr Zhu sitting on the roof above the master bedroom of the House. PW1 asked Mr Zhu to descend from the roof but met with no response. Case was reported.
4. At 8:12 am, police arrived. Mr Zhu was still on the roof. Police instructed Mr Zhu to descend. He did and was then restrained. Upon search, a HK50 cents coin was found on him.
5. Under arrest and caution, Mr Zhu said, “I saw that this is a rich person’s house, so I went in to see if there was anything to steal! I know I was wrong!”
6. In a subsequent VRI, Mr Zhu admitted:
(a) He entered Hong Kong via Lo Wu Control Point on 29 October 2024;
(b) The purpose of his visit was to go to Big Wave Bay to make a fortune by stealing money from residences of the rich;
(c) At around 9 pm on 29 October 2024, he hid at the seaside fence of the House waiting for an opportunity;
(d) At around 11 pm, he saw that lights in the House were turned off and he proceeded to try accessing the House;
(e) He failed to gain entry to the interior of the House because all the doors and windows were locked;
(f) Wanting to turn himself in, he climbed on to the roof waiting to be discovered; and
(g) He disposed of his phone and identification documents to the sea because he feared his family would be notified.
Criminal record
7. Mr Zhu has a clear record.
Antecedents
8. Mr Zhu is aged 35 (33 at the time of the offence), educated to junior high school level in the Mainland, previously worked in an electronic factory for over 7 years but now unemployed. Mr Zhu has an elder sister and younger sister, both married. Mr Zhu is single and resided with his parents in Guangdong.
Mitigation
9. Mr Brian Tsui of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Zhu. The following is a summary of mitigation submissions.
10. Burglary of domestic premises attracts a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. The seriousness of the offence lies in there being always the possibility of confrontation with the occupant who will be subject to extreme fright when a total stranger invades his privacy: HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338.
11. The fact that Mr Zhu entered Hong Kong for the express purpose of stealing from residences of the rich is an aggravating factor in the present case.
12. Mr Tsui urged upon the court that there may be some mitigating factors in the case:
(a) There were no tools for stealing found on Mr Zhu;
(b) The burglary did not seem to be well-planned; the attempts made to gain entry were primitive and unsophisticated;
(c) After the failed attempts, Mr Zhu decided to turn himself in without escape;
(d) Full confessions were made to the police upon arrest; and
(e) There were no actual loss or trauma of confrontation caused to the occupants.
13. Mr Tsui reminded the court to give the full one-third sentencing discount to Mr Zhu upon his guilty plea.
Sentence
14. The usual starting point for burglary of domestic premises is 3 years’ imprisonment. This can be raised where there are aggravating factors such as where the premises was substantial[1] or where a defendant came to Hong Kong specifically to commit an offence.
15. Both of these factors are present.
16. However, balanced against aggravation, I note that this was an attempt with no property loss; and Mr Zhu stayed at the scene to await the police.
17. Taking all these into consideration, I will raise the starting point by only 3 months to reach a final starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.
18. Mr Zhu pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount. As an act of mercy, I will grant him one additional month off after the 1/3 for his clear record. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.
(Mr Zhu, please stand)
19. The sentence for Mr Zhu is 25 months’ imprisonment.
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
[1] See HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, CACC 338/2007, at para 15.