DCCC928/2025 HKSAR v. TSE KOON KIT AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC928/2025
區域法院（刑事）H.H. Judge G. Lam27/1/2026[2026] HKDC 180
DCCC928/2025
由此
A A
B DCCC 928/2025 B
[2026] HKDC 180
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 928 OF 2025 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Koon-kit (D1)
I CHOW Tsz-lung (D2) I
____________
J J
K Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam K
Date : 28 January 2026
L Present : Ms. Joey Yuen, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. L
Ms. Denise Or instructed by M/s Leung & Lien,
M assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1. M
Ms. Flora Cheng instructed by M/s K.M. Tang & Co.,
N
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2. N
Offences : (1) Burglary（入屋犯法）
(2) Possession of offensive weapons in a public
O O
place（在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器）
(3) Failure to comply with requirement to produce
P P
proof of identity for inspection1（沒有遵從要求出
示身分證明以供查閱）
Q Q
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
T T
1
Contrary to section 49(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap.245.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
D1 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary" (Charge 1) and a
B B
charge of "Failure to comply with requirement to produce proof of identity
C C
for inspection" (Charge 3). D2 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Possession of
D D
offensive weapons in a public place" (Charge 2).
E E
F F
Summary of Facts
G G
2. About 3:50 a.m. on 8 March 2025, Mr. Chong (PW1) was a
H H
security guard on duty in the carpark shroff office at Kingsgate, No.178 Pau
I I
Chung Street, To Kwa Wan ("the Shroff Office"). He fell asleep and the
J J
door of the Shroff Office was left ajar. His Samsung mobile phone was
K K
lying on the desk. Suddenly, PW1 was awakened by some noise and saw a
L man running from the Shroff Office towards the carpark exit. He also found L
M his mobile phone missing. M
N N
3. About 3:55 a.m. on the same day, PC 13182 (PW2) and PC
O O
23087 (PW3) intercepted D1 and D2 for enquiry at the junction between Ma
P P
Tau Kok Road and Pau Chung Street.
Q Q
R R
4. Upon search, PW1's mobile phone was found in D1's right
S S
front trouser pocket. D2 was carrying a bag which contained 2 extendable
T T
steel batons (E1 and E2). D1 also failed to produce his identity card for
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
inspection at PW2's request. As a result, PW2 arrested D1 for "Theft" and
B B
"Failing to produce proof of identity", whereas PW3 arrested D2 for
C C
"Possession of offensive weapons".
D D
E E
5. Under caution, D1 admitted that he had stolen the mobile
F F
phone from the Shroff Office out of greed. He claimed to have lost his Hong
G Kong Identity Card several days ago. G
H H
I 6. Under caution, D2 claimed that he found E1 and E2 in a pile of I
J
trash somewhere in To Kwa Wan and decided to keep them for self-defence. J
He explained that debt collectors were pursuing him to repay his debts.
K K
L L
Other evidence
M M
N 7. CCTV footage captured D1 and D2 walking towards the Shroff N
Office together around 3:52 a.m. on 8 March 2025. D1 reached his arm
O O
inside the Shroff Office and took PW1's mobile phone. D1 and D2 then fled
P P
together. Both D1 and D2 identified themselves as the culprits depicted in
Q Q
the footage.
R R
S S
8. PW1 identified the mobile phone found on D1 as his property.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
9. Government Chemist confirmed that E1 was a 29-cm
B B
spring-loaded steel baton, extendable to 65 cm, and E2 was a 21-cm
C C
gravity-operated steel baton, extendable to 54 cm.
D D
E E
Mitigation
F F
D1
G G
H 10. He is 50 and has 26 conviction records, which included 14 H
I "Theft" offences, 1 "Attempted burglary" offence, 1 "Burglary" offence and I
J
1 "Robbery" offence. His counsel Ms. Or informed me that D1 is single and J
resides with his mother (aged 74) in a public housing unit. Prior to his arrest,
K K
he was a part-time driver earning about $20,000 per month. In mitigation,
L L
Ms. Or submitted that D1 committed Charge 1 in a moment of greed upon
M M
seeing the door of the Shroff Office left ajar. His stealing act was unplanned
N N
and PW1's mobile phone was recovered.
O O
P P
D2
Q Q
11. He is almost 38 and has 12 conviction records, which included
R R
3 violence-related offences. His counsel Ms. Cheng informed me that D2 is
S S
single but has a daughter (aged 3) with his ex-girlfriend. In mitigation, Ms.
T T
Cheng submitted that in order to meet the increased expenses resulting from
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
the birth of his baby daughter, D2 borrowed money from others. Owing to
B B
the pandemic, he was unable to find enough work to repay his debts. On the
C C
night in question, D2 intended to meet up with D1 for a late-night snack.
D D
Since D2 was afraid of being attacked by debt collectors, he carried the
E E
batons with him. He did not commit any offence with those batons.
F F
G Sentence G
H H
D1
I I
J
12. His criminal record is appalling. He is also a repeated offender J
of theft-related offences including "Burglary" and "Robbery". His most
K K
recent conviction record involved a "Robbery" offence, a "Theft" offence
L L
and 2 other driving offences2, for which he was sentenced to a total of 4
M M
years and 8 months' imprisonment in August 2023. He was released from
N N
prison in October 20243 and committed the present "Burglary" offence in
O O
March 2025. Being a recidivist and re-offending shortly after release are
P P
both aggravating factors.
Q Q
R 13. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 R
S
years' imprisonment. I am aware of the Court of Appeal's decisions in S
T 2
DCCC 26/2022. T
3
D1's antecedents dated 2 January 2026, paragraph (f).
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259 and HKSAR v Sim Ka
B B
Wing CACC 450/2000. I consider a starting point of 18 months'
C C
imprisonment appropriate for Charge 1, and will increase it to 22.5
D D
months to reflect the relevant aggravating factors. With the timely guilty
E E
plea, I sentence D1 to 15 months' imprisonment for this charge.
F F
G 14. For Charge 3, I do not understand why D1 was charged under G
H the Public Order Ordinance instead of the Immigration Ordinance 4, which H
I only carries a maximum fine of $5,000. He did not deliberately refuse to I
J
produce his identity card; he simply did not have it with him. Charging D1 J
under the Public Order Ordinance seems to be out of proportion. I will fine
K K
him $500 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month.
L L
M M
D2
N N
15. Extendable batons are by nature offensive weapons. One does
O O
not carry them around for any purpose, even self-defence. I find it hard to
P P
believe that D2 picked up 2 steel extendable batons in working condition
Q Q
from a pile of trash. I have no doubt that he was up to no good carrying not
R R
just one, but two, when meeting D1 on the street in the early hours.
S S
T T
4
Contrary to section 17C(3) of Cap.115.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
16. D2's criminal record is not much better than D1's. He has
B B
convictions of violence-related offences. For Charge 2, I consider a starting
C C
point of 10.5 months' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely
D D
guilty plea, I sentence D2 to 7 months' imprisonment for this charge.
E E
F F
G (G. Lam) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 928/2025 B
[2026] HKDC 180
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 928 OF 2025 E
F
____________ F
G HKSAR G
v
H H
TSE Koon-kit (D1)
I CHOW Tsz-lung (D2) I
____________
J J
K Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam K
Date : 28 January 2026
L Present : Ms. Joey Yuen, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. L
Ms. Denise Or instructed by M/s Leung & Lien,
M assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1. M
Ms. Flora Cheng instructed by M/s K.M. Tang & Co.,
N
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2. N
Offences : (1) Burglary（入屋犯法）
(2) Possession of offensive weapons in a public
O O
place（在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器）
(3) Failure to comply with requirement to produce
P P
proof of identity for inspection1（沒有遵從要求出
示身分證明以供查閱）
Q Q
R R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
T T
1
Contrary to section 49(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap.245.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
D1 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary" (Charge 1) and a
B B
charge of "Failure to comply with requirement to produce proof of identity
C C
for inspection" (Charge 3). D2 pleaded guilty to a charge of "Possession of
D D
offensive weapons in a public place" (Charge 2).
E E
F F
Summary of Facts
G G
2. About 3:50 a.m. on 8 March 2025, Mr. Chong (PW1) was a
H H
security guard on duty in the carpark shroff office at Kingsgate, No.178 Pau
I I
Chung Street, To Kwa Wan ("the Shroff Office"). He fell asleep and the
J J
door of the Shroff Office was left ajar. His Samsung mobile phone was
K K
lying on the desk. Suddenly, PW1 was awakened by some noise and saw a
L man running from the Shroff Office towards the carpark exit. He also found L
M his mobile phone missing. M
N N
3. About 3:55 a.m. on the same day, PC 13182 (PW2) and PC
O O
23087 (PW3) intercepted D1 and D2 for enquiry at the junction between Ma
P P
Tau Kok Road and Pau Chung Street.
Q Q
R R
4. Upon search, PW1's mobile phone was found in D1's right
S S
front trouser pocket. D2 was carrying a bag which contained 2 extendable
T T
steel batons (E1 and E2). D1 also failed to produce his identity card for
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
inspection at PW2's request. As a result, PW2 arrested D1 for "Theft" and
B B
"Failing to produce proof of identity", whereas PW3 arrested D2 for
C C
"Possession of offensive weapons".
D D
E E
5. Under caution, D1 admitted that he had stolen the mobile
F F
phone from the Shroff Office out of greed. He claimed to have lost his Hong
G Kong Identity Card several days ago. G
H H
I 6. Under caution, D2 claimed that he found E1 and E2 in a pile of I
J
trash somewhere in To Kwa Wan and decided to keep them for self-defence. J
He explained that debt collectors were pursuing him to repay his debts.
K K
L L
Other evidence
M M
N 7. CCTV footage captured D1 and D2 walking towards the Shroff N
Office together around 3:52 a.m. on 8 March 2025. D1 reached his arm
O O
inside the Shroff Office and took PW1's mobile phone. D1 and D2 then fled
P P
together. Both D1 and D2 identified themselves as the culprits depicted in
Q Q
the footage.
R R
S S
8. PW1 identified the mobile phone found on D1 as his property.
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
9. Government Chemist confirmed that E1 was a 29-cm
B B
spring-loaded steel baton, extendable to 65 cm, and E2 was a 21-cm
C C
gravity-operated steel baton, extendable to 54 cm.
D D
E E
Mitigation
F F
D1
G G
H 10. He is 50 and has 26 conviction records, which included 14 H
I "Theft" offences, 1 "Attempted burglary" offence, 1 "Burglary" offence and I
J
1 "Robbery" offence. His counsel Ms. Or informed me that D1 is single and J
resides with his mother (aged 74) in a public housing unit. Prior to his arrest,
K K
he was a part-time driver earning about $20,000 per month. In mitigation,
L L
Ms. Or submitted that D1 committed Charge 1 in a moment of greed upon
M M
seeing the door of the Shroff Office left ajar. His stealing act was unplanned
N N
and PW1's mobile phone was recovered.
O O
P P
D2
Q Q
11. He is almost 38 and has 12 conviction records, which included
R R
3 violence-related offences. His counsel Ms. Cheng informed me that D2 is
S S
single but has a daughter (aged 3) with his ex-girlfriend. In mitigation, Ms.
T T
Cheng submitted that in order to meet the increased expenses resulting from
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
the birth of his baby daughter, D2 borrowed money from others. Owing to
B B
the pandemic, he was unable to find enough work to repay his debts. On the
C C
night in question, D2 intended to meet up with D1 for a late-night snack.
D D
Since D2 was afraid of being attacked by debt collectors, he carried the
E E
batons with him. He did not commit any offence with those batons.
F F
G Sentence G
H H
D1
I I
J
12. His criminal record is appalling. He is also a repeated offender J
of theft-related offences including "Burglary" and "Robbery". His most
K K
recent conviction record involved a "Robbery" offence, a "Theft" offence
L L
and 2 other driving offences2, for which he was sentenced to a total of 4
M M
years and 8 months' imprisonment in August 2023. He was released from
N N
prison in October 20243 and committed the present "Burglary" offence in
O O
March 2025. Being a recidivist and re-offending shortly after release are
P P
both aggravating factors.
Q Q
R 13. The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 R
S
years' imprisonment. I am aware of the Court of Appeal's decisions in S
T 2
DCCC 26/2022. T
3
D1's antecedents dated 2 January 2026, paragraph (f).
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
HKSAR v Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259 and HKSAR v Sim Ka
B B
Wing CACC 450/2000. I consider a starting point of 18 months'
C C
imprisonment appropriate for Charge 1, and will increase it to 22.5
D D
months to reflect the relevant aggravating factors. With the timely guilty
E E
plea, I sentence D1 to 15 months' imprisonment for this charge.
F F
G 14. For Charge 3, I do not understand why D1 was charged under G
H the Public Order Ordinance instead of the Immigration Ordinance 4, which H
I only carries a maximum fine of $5,000. He did not deliberately refuse to I
J
produce his identity card; he simply did not have it with him. Charging D1 J
under the Public Order Ordinance seems to be out of proportion. I will fine
K K
him $500 for this charge, to be paid within 1 month.
L L
M M
D2
N N
15. Extendable batons are by nature offensive weapons. One does
O O
not carry them around for any purpose, even self-defence. I find it hard to
P P
believe that D2 picked up 2 steel extendable batons in working condition
Q Q
from a pile of trash. I have no doubt that he was up to no good carrying not
R R
just one, but two, when meeting D1 on the street in the early hours.
S S
T T
4
Contrary to section 17C(3) of Cap.115.
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
16. D2's criminal record is not much better than D1's. He has
B B
convictions of violence-related offences. For Charge 2, I consider a starting
C C
point of 10.5 months' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely
D D
guilty plea, I sentence D2 to 7 months' imprisonment for this charge.
E E
F F
G (G. Lam) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V