A A
B B
DCCC 221/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1893 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 221 OF 2025
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
RAN DONGDONG
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
K K
Date: 4 November 2025
L Present: Mr Lee Zi Jian, Samson, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR L
Mr Sham Che Fai, Jeffrey, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N Offence: Burglary（入屋犯法罪） N
O O
-----------------------------------------
P REASONS FOR SENTENCE P
-----------------------------------------
Q Q
R 1. Mr Ran pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, R
contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
S S
T 2. Particulars are that he, on 3 August 2024, in Hong Kong, T
having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as 8th Floor, Nos 8-
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan Ho, stole therein cash of $8,000 Hong Kong
C currency and one watch. C
D D
Facts admitted by Mr Ran
E E
3. The subject building in Nos 8-10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan
F F
Ho, was a 9-story tenement building. It had no lift, no security guard; and
G the entrance was not equipped with a lock. There were scaffoldings outside G
the building.
H H
I 4. PW1 resided in a flat (“the Flat”) located on 8/F of the I
building with her family. The residents also occupied the rooftop of the
J J
building.
K K
5. On 3 August 2024, at about 7:15 am, PW1 left the Flat while
L L
leaving behind $8,000 cash and a Vacheron Constantin watch (valued
M $50,000) in 2 drawers in the bedroom of the Flat. PW1 locked the main M
door behind her but she did not close a window of the living room.
N N
O 6. At about 11:15 pm when she returned, PW1 found the window O
ajar with the window grille damaged and opened. The cash and the watch
P P
were gone. She reported the case to the police.
Q Q
7. CCTV installed at the stairwell of the building shows footage
R R
of Mr Ran walking to and from the rooftop between 7:35 pm and 8:03 pm
S on that day. Police viewed this footage. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. In the afternoon of 6 August 2024, police spotted Mr Ran in
C Mong Kok. As Mr Ran was suspected to be involved in the burglary, he C
was followed. Mr Ran visited a shop called “IN WATCH” in Sino Centre,
D D
Mong Kok. Police eventually intercepted Mr Ran for enquiry in Mong
E Kok at 5:35 pm. Not long, Mr Ran was arrested for burglary. Upon search, E
the Vecheron Constantin watch was recovered from Mr Ran’s right
F F
trousers’ pocket.
G G
9. On the next day, during a cautioned VRI, Mr Ran stated that
H H
he went to the shop called “IN WATCH” to replace the battery of the watch.
I I
Criminal record
J J
K 10. Mr Ran has a clear record. K
L L
Antecedents
M M
11. Mr Ran is aged almost 31 (29 at the time of the offence), a
N N
Mainland resident educated to primary level there. He was a casual
O renovation worker prior to arrest. O
P P
Mitigation
Q Q
12. Mr Jeffrey Sham of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
R R
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Ran. The following is a summary of the
S mitigation submissions. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
13. Mr Ran is married with a 4-year old daughter. His parents
C divorced early and have no contact with him. His grandparents are elderly. C
He is the sole breadwinner of his family. Mr Ran resided in Guizhou and
D D
came to Hong Kong on 1 August 2024. Mr Ran has been working as a
E renovation worker (casual labour) since 2022, with a monthly income of E
about RMB8,000.
F F
G 14. The sentence after trial for an adult first offender in a burglary G
of domestic premises case is 3 years’ imprisonment: R v Chan Yui Man
H H
CACC 36/1988 and HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565.
I I
15. In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338 & 339/2007, the
J J
Court of Appeal indicated that aggravating factors include:
K K
(a) The offence was carefully planned and skillfully
L L
executed, involving the use of heavy tools or equipment;
M M
(b) The offence was committed by two or more persons;
N N
O (c) The target was large premises and involved substantial O
property;
P P
Q (d) The offender is a professional burglar, not an Q
opportunist;
R R
S (e) The offender has a record of convictions, especially for S
offences of a similar nature; and
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C (f) The offender committed multiple offences. C
D D
16. It was submitted none of the above aggravating factors is
E present in this case. E
F F
17. It was further submitted that since the stolen watch has been
G recovered, the sole financial loss to the victim would be cash of $8,000. G
H H
18. Defence has already made compensation of $8,000 through
I the intermediary of the police to PW1 on 30 October 2025. Mr Sham relied I
on HKSAR v Poon Hung (transliteration) CACC 91/2020 to seek further
J J
sentence reduction.
K K
19. Mr Sham submitted on behalf of Mr Ran two mitigation
L L
letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Ran himself and his wife. The
M contents generally are that Mr Ran committed the offence out of M
momentary greed; that he is regretful for bringing harm to his family; that
N N
he apologizes to the victim and is willing to make compensation; that Mr
O Ran was the economic pillar of the family; because of what happened to O
him, his wife has now to go out to work leaving the care of her young
P P
daughter to Mr Ran’s aged grandparents. The letter writers asked for a
Q chance be given for Mr Ran to start afresh and for a lenient sentence so Mr Q
Ran could return home earlier and pick up the family responsibility again.
R R
S 20. Mr Sham asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of Mr Ran. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
21. Burglary of domestic premises normally calls for a sentence
D D
after trial of 3 years’ imprisonment even for a first offender. This is the
E starting point that I shall adopt. E
F F
22. Despite a number of searching questions to Mr Sham who
G dutifully sought instructions from Mr Ran before answering them, I have G
been unable to be sure that Mr Ran came to Hong Kong specifically to
H H
commit the present type of offence. Therefore, the sentence will not be
I enhanced on this ground. I
J J
23. Something needs to be said about the compensation
K mechanism that has occurred in this case. Before plea was formally taken K
today, PW1 was still a potential witness. Any attempt to actually pay her
L L
compensation before today may be regarded as improper. If there was a
M genuine intention to compensate, the most that could be done was to inform M
the prosecution of such intention. It would then be for the prosecution to
N N
decide if PW1’s views as to compensation should be sought at that early
O stage. In any event, no compensation should be made before plea is O
formally taken.
P P
Q 24. Mr Ran pleaded guilty to the offence in good time. He shall Q
be entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount.
R R
S 25. I note that the stolen watch has been recovered; and that PW1 S
has been fully compensated for the stolen cash. Despite the fact that the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
window grille was damaged, I believe that it would still be justified if I
C were to grant Mr Ran 2 more months’ discount after the 1/3 reduction. I C
will do that.
D D
E 26. There are no other mitigating factors that will warrant another E
sentence reduction.
F F
G (Mr Ran, please stand) G
H H
27. The sentence for Mr Ran is 22 months’ imprisonment.
I I
J J
K K
L ( Isaac Tam ) L
District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 221/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1893 C
D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 221 OF 2025
F F
----------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
RAN DONGDONG
I I
----------------------------
J J
Before: His Honour Judge Tam
K K
Date: 4 November 2025
L Present: Mr Lee Zi Jian, Samson, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR L
Mr Sham Che Fai, Jeffrey, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co,
M M
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N Offence: Burglary（入屋犯法罪） N
O O
-----------------------------------------
P REASONS FOR SENTENCE P
-----------------------------------------
Q Q
R 1. Mr Ran pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Burglary, R
contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
S S
T 2. Particulars are that he, on 3 August 2024, in Hong Kong, T
having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as 8th Floor, Nos 8-
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan Ho, stole therein cash of $8,000 Hong Kong
C currency and one watch. C
D D
Facts admitted by Mr Ran
E E
3. The subject building in Nos 8-10 Shing On Street, Sai Wan
F F
Ho, was a 9-story tenement building. It had no lift, no security guard; and
G the entrance was not equipped with a lock. There were scaffoldings outside G
the building.
H H
I 4. PW1 resided in a flat (“the Flat”) located on 8/F of the I
building with her family. The residents also occupied the rooftop of the
J J
building.
K K
5. On 3 August 2024, at about 7:15 am, PW1 left the Flat while
L L
leaving behind $8,000 cash and a Vacheron Constantin watch (valued
M $50,000) in 2 drawers in the bedroom of the Flat. PW1 locked the main M
door behind her but she did not close a window of the living room.
N N
O 6. At about 11:15 pm when she returned, PW1 found the window O
ajar with the window grille damaged and opened. The cash and the watch
P P
were gone. She reported the case to the police.
Q Q
7. CCTV installed at the stairwell of the building shows footage
R R
of Mr Ran walking to and from the rooftop between 7:35 pm and 8:03 pm
S on that day. Police viewed this footage. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
8. In the afternoon of 6 August 2024, police spotted Mr Ran in
C Mong Kok. As Mr Ran was suspected to be involved in the burglary, he C
was followed. Mr Ran visited a shop called “IN WATCH” in Sino Centre,
D D
Mong Kok. Police eventually intercepted Mr Ran for enquiry in Mong
E Kok at 5:35 pm. Not long, Mr Ran was arrested for burglary. Upon search, E
the Vecheron Constantin watch was recovered from Mr Ran’s right
F F
trousers’ pocket.
G G
9. On the next day, during a cautioned VRI, Mr Ran stated that
H H
he went to the shop called “IN WATCH” to replace the battery of the watch.
I I
Criminal record
J J
K 10. Mr Ran has a clear record. K
L L
Antecedents
M M
11. Mr Ran is aged almost 31 (29 at the time of the offence), a
N N
Mainland resident educated to primary level there. He was a casual
O renovation worker prior to arrest. O
P P
Mitigation
Q Q
12. Mr Jeffrey Sham of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
R R
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Ran. The following is a summary of the
S mitigation submissions. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
13. Mr Ran is married with a 4-year old daughter. His parents
C divorced early and have no contact with him. His grandparents are elderly. C
He is the sole breadwinner of his family. Mr Ran resided in Guizhou and
D D
came to Hong Kong on 1 August 2024. Mr Ran has been working as a
E renovation worker (casual labour) since 2022, with a monthly income of E
about RMB8,000.
F F
G 14. The sentence after trial for an adult first offender in a burglary G
of domestic premises case is 3 years’ imprisonment: R v Chan Yui Man
H H
CACC 36/1988 and HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565.
I I
15. In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338 & 339/2007, the
J J
Court of Appeal indicated that aggravating factors include:
K K
(a) The offence was carefully planned and skillfully
L L
executed, involving the use of heavy tools or equipment;
M M
(b) The offence was committed by two or more persons;
N N
O (c) The target was large premises and involved substantial O
property;
P P
Q (d) The offender is a professional burglar, not an Q
opportunist;
R R
S (e) The offender has a record of convictions, especially for S
offences of a similar nature; and
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C (f) The offender committed multiple offences. C
D D
16. It was submitted none of the above aggravating factors is
E present in this case. E
F F
17. It was further submitted that since the stolen watch has been
G recovered, the sole financial loss to the victim would be cash of $8,000. G
H H
18. Defence has already made compensation of $8,000 through
I the intermediary of the police to PW1 on 30 October 2025. Mr Sham relied I
on HKSAR v Poon Hung (transliteration) CACC 91/2020 to seek further
J J
sentence reduction.
K K
19. Mr Sham submitted on behalf of Mr Ran two mitigation
L L
letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Ran himself and his wife. The
M contents generally are that Mr Ran committed the offence out of M
momentary greed; that he is regretful for bringing harm to his family; that
N N
he apologizes to the victim and is willing to make compensation; that Mr
O Ran was the economic pillar of the family; because of what happened to O
him, his wife has now to go out to work leaving the care of her young
P P
daughter to Mr Ran’s aged grandparents. The letter writers asked for a
Q chance be given for Mr Ran to start afresh and for a lenient sentence so Mr Q
Ran could return home earlier and pick up the family responsibility again.
R R
S 20. Mr Sham asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of Mr Ran. S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
21. Burglary of domestic premises normally calls for a sentence
D D
after trial of 3 years’ imprisonment even for a first offender. This is the
E starting point that I shall adopt. E
F F
22. Despite a number of searching questions to Mr Sham who
G dutifully sought instructions from Mr Ran before answering them, I have G
been unable to be sure that Mr Ran came to Hong Kong specifically to
H H
commit the present type of offence. Therefore, the sentence will not be
I enhanced on this ground. I
J J
23. Something needs to be said about the compensation
K mechanism that has occurred in this case. Before plea was formally taken K
today, PW1 was still a potential witness. Any attempt to actually pay her
L L
compensation before today may be regarded as improper. If there was a
M genuine intention to compensate, the most that could be done was to inform M
the prosecution of such intention. It would then be for the prosecution to
N N
decide if PW1’s views as to compensation should be sought at that early
O stage. In any event, no compensation should be made before plea is O
formally taken.
P P
Q 24. Mr Ran pleaded guilty to the offence in good time. He shall Q
be entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount.
R R
S 25. I note that the stolen watch has been recovered; and that PW1 S
has been fully compensated for the stolen cash. Despite the fact that the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
window grille was damaged, I believe that it would still be justified if I
C were to grant Mr Ran 2 more months’ discount after the 1/3 reduction. I C
will do that.
D D
E 26. There are no other mitigating factors that will warrant another E
sentence reduction.
F F
G (Mr Ran, please stand) G
H H
27. The sentence for Mr Ran is 22 months’ imprisonment.
I I
J J
K K
L ( Isaac Tam ) L
District Judge
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V