區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung12/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1747
合併案件：DCCC205/2025DCCC59/2025
DCCC205/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 59 & 205/2025 (Heard together)
[2025] HKDC 1747
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 59 OF 2025
F F
G G
---------------------------------------
H
HKSAR H
v
I I
XU Weimin （許偉民） Defendant
J --------------------------------------- J
K K
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
L HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION L
CRIMINAL CASE NO 205 OF 2025
M M
N --------------------------------------- N
HKSAR
O O
v
P XU Weimin （許偉民） Defendant P
Q
--------------------------------------- Q
R R
Before: Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung
S
Date: 13 October 2025 S
Present: Mr Lai Anson, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
T T
Mr Ah-weng Jonathan Winston, instructed by Messrs James W
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
L Li & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
C Defendant C
Offence: DCCC 59/2025
D D
[1] – [3] Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
E DCCC 205/2025 E
[1] – [3] Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
F F
G --------------------------------------- G
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
H H
---------------------------------------
I I
J
1. The defendant XU Weimin (D) appeared before me in relation J
to 2 separate cases (DCCC 59 of 2025 & DCCC 205 of 2025), each
K K
involving 3 Charges. All 6 Charges are “Burglary”, contrary to section
L
11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The 3 Charges in DCCC L
59/2025 occurred in Mong Kok area while those in DCCC 205/2025
M M
occurred in Kwun Tong area. He pleaded guilty to all 6 Charges and
N admitted to the Summary of Facts relating to each Charge as presented by N
the Prosecution.
O O
P 2. On his application, Sentence of the 2 cases are to be dealt with P
together.
Q Q
R Facts R
S 3. The facts of each Charge as admitted by D are summarised in S
the following paragraphs. The offences in DCCC 205/2025 occurred before
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
those in DCCC 59/2025, I will deal with them according to the time
C sequence. C
D D
DCCC 205/2025
E E
1st Charge
F F
4. The premises concerned was a snack shop situated at Shop No.
G G
1A, Ground Floor, Block 3, Camel Paint Building, No. 60 Hoi Yuen Road,
H
Kwun Tong. It was about 200 square feet in size. There was a roller gate H
fixed at the entrance, but it was never rolled down when the shop was briefly
I I
closed for business at around dawn every day. A red rubbish bin was place
J at the entrance to block the entrance to prevent others from entering during J
the period.
K K
L 5. At around 05:50 hours on 10 August 2024 when the shop was L
left unattended, D pushed the red rubbish bin aside and entered the shop.
M M
He took away cash of HKD (same below) $600 which was placed in a red
N bucket placed inside the shop and left. N
O O
2nd Charge
P P
6. Earl’s Café was located at Shop No. A, Ground Floor, Sun
Q Wing Building, No. 48 Tsun Yip Street, Kwun Tong. It operated between Q
07:00 and 22:00 hours every day.
R R
S 7. At around 05:30 hours on 10 August 2024, staff of the Café S
returned and left the gate at the entrance half opened. At around 06:00 hours
T T
D entered the Café, approached the cashier, prized open the drawer of the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
cashier with a pair of scissors and took away cash $8,000 therefrom and left.
C C
3rd Charge
D D
8. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shop C,
E E
Ground Floor, Montery Plaza, No. 15 Chong Yip Street, Kwun Tong. It
F operated between 07:30 and 03:30 hours every day. F
G G
9. At around 03:00 hours on 14 August 2024, when the restaurant
H was unattended, D opened the gate, entered the restaurant, prized open the H
drawer of the cashier and took away $19,000 therefrom and left.
I I
J DCCC 59/2025 J
K K
1st Charge
L L
10. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shops A &
M B, Ground Floor, No. 393-395 Reclamation Street, Mong Kok. At around M
01:35 hours on 27 August 2024, D pushed the unlocked button of the
N N
electric roller shutter at the entrance and the shutter was raised and became
O open. D then entered and approached the cashier machine with an open O
umbrella to block himself from the CCTV. He opened the cashier machine,
P P
took away cash $15,500 therefrom and left.
Q Q
2nd Charge
R R
S 11. The premises concerned was a snack shop located at Shop C, S
Ground Floor, On May Mansion, 597A-599A, Shanghai Street, Mong Kok.
T T
At around 06:12 hours on 29 August 2024, D entered the shop through its
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
open gate and took away around $2,000 cash therein. He stayed for about
C 26 seconds and left. C
D D
3rd Charge
E E
12. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shops B3,
F F
B4, D & E, Ground Floor, Far East Consortium Mong Kok Building, 240-
G 244 Portland Street, Mong Kok. G
H H
13. At around 04:51 hours on 31 August 2024, the door of the
I restaurant had been opened by staff who had earlier arrived to prepare for I
work but the restaurant was not yet open for business. D entered the
J J
restaurant through the open door, went to the cashier machine and attempted
K to open it and the drawer underneath it but was unable to do so. He left and K
returned about 5 minutes later. Armed with an object he prized open the
L L
drawer underneath the cashier machine and took away around $3,190 cash
M therefrom and left. M
N N
Arrest and cautioned statements of D
O O
14. The cases were reported to the police. A police officer
P P
conducted analysis of the CCTVs available at various locations at or near
Q the premises concerned in DCCC 59/2025. At around 13:49 hours on 2 Q
September 2024, when the officer was conducting investigation at Kwong
R R
Fu Building, 38 Kam Lam Street, Mong Kok, D happened to pass by. The
S officer noticed D’s appearance matched the culprit depicted in the CCTV S
footages and intercepted D.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
15. At the time of interception, D had with him a red recycle bag,
C which contained 2 transparent resealable plastic bags each containing 20 C
$5 coins (i.e. a total of $200). Cash of $708.2 was also found in his trousers
D D
pocket. The red recycle bag carried by D looked identical to the one carried
E by the culprit in some of the Charges, the jeans and slippers worn by D also E
looked the same as those worn by the culprit.
F F
G 16. D was arrested. In the subsequent VRIs conducted under G
caution, he readily admitted to having committed all the offences mentioned
H H
above. He stated that he had spent all the money stolen from these offences
I on food and cigarettes. I
J J
Defendant’s Backgrounds and Mitigation
K K
17. D is now 53 years old, born in Fujian, Mainland China on 22
L July 1972. He came to settle in Hong Kong in 2013. He separated from his L
wife in 2022 and the 2 daughters, aged 22 and 11, followed the wife. Since
M M
then he had lost contact with them. He had been unemployed since 2019,
N N
relying on friends for his living. He claimed to have no fixed place of
O
abode. O
P P
18. D has 13 previous convictions on 6 Court appearances, 10 of
Q which were similar to the present offences. His last conviction came on 29 Q
April 2024 when he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for one count
R R
of “Burglary”, and was released from prison on 29 May 2024, after serving
S out his sentence. S
T T
19. On behalf of D in relation to both cases, Mr Jonathan Ah-weng
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
submitted in mitigation that D frankly admitted to the offences to the police
C after his arrest, and pleaded guilty in Court at the first available opportunity. C
The offences arose sadly out of D’s financial desperation, and not motivated
D D
by greed or drug addiction.
E E
20. As to assessment of sentence, Mr Ah-weng stated that all
F F
premises concerned were non-domestic premises. Citing HKSAR v Sim Ka
G Wing1, he accepted that the normal starting point for burglary involving G
such premises is 2 1/2 years imprisonment. He also conceded that D had
H H
previous similar convictions and that he used tools to prize open the drawers
I in the cashiers in some of the Charges involved. However, relying on the I
comments by the CA in that case and HKSAR v Lee Chiu Yui（李釗銳又
J J
名李朝銳） , he submitted that the offences committed by D in the present
2
K K
cases were more akin to an “opportunistic burglar” or a “sneak thief ”
L
scenario, so that the Court can adopt a lower starting point. Mr Ah-weng L
further submitted that in the present cases, D acted alone and did not use
M M
any tools to gain access, there is no evidence of any sophisticated planning
N and minimal property damage, if any, had been caused to the premises N
concerned. Mr Ah-weng urged the Court to take into account the totality
O O
principle and be as lenient as possible to D.
P P
Sentence
Q Q
21. It is well established that the normal starting point for burglary
R R
S S
1
unrep., CACC 450/2000, 30 May 2001
T T
2
unrep., CACC 24/2014, 15 October 2014
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
involving non-domestic premises is 2 1/2 years imprisonment 3.
C C
4
22. In Sim Ka Wing the CA stated :
D D
“9. The conventional starting-point of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment
for the burglary of non-domestic premises relates to burglaries
E with no aggravating or mitigating features. Such burglaries will E
involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation
and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point.
F The conventional starting-point can be lowered in the case of the F
opportunistic burglar, akin perhaps to the sneak thief who walks
G into an open office to steal whatever he can find. Likewise, the G
conventional starting-point can be increased in the case of
professional criminals who plan their burglaries with meticulous
H care and steal goods and cash of considerable value.” H
I I
23. In HKSAR v Cheung To Ming（張道明） 5 , applying the
J principle of “opportunistic burglar”, the CA adopted 18 months as the J
appropriate starting point for a similar offence.
K K
L 24. In the context of the present cases, I accept the submissions L
by Mr Ah-weng that the offences committed by D were more akin to an
M M
“opportunistic burglar” or a “sneak thief ” scenario. The premises
N concerned were all unattended and had their doors opened or unlocked N
when D entered; he acted alone; he did not engage any substantial
O O
equipment; no serious damage had been caused to the premises and the
P value of the property stolen was not high. I am prepared to adopt a lower P
starting point of 18 months for each offence.
Q Q
R R
S 3 S
See e.g., R v Wong Man, unrep. CACC 372/1992, 30 March 1993
4
supra
T T
5
[2006] 2 HKLRD 259
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
25. However, in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai（鄭偉佳）6, the CA
C stated: C
“15. The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are
D D
aggravating circumstances such as; (1) the offence is carefully
planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy
E instrument or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or E
more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and
involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional
F F
burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous
convictions, particularly previous conviction of similar nature,
G and (6) the offender commits multiple offences. G
16. If the offences were committed in different premises against
H different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should H
be imposed…”
I I
26. In HKSAR v Fan Kit Hung （范傑雄） 7 ，the CA added
J J
causing substantial damage to the premises as another aggravating
K K
circumstance. Also, in that case the appellant committed 13 burglaries on
L shop premises within a period of 4 months, with stolen properties worth L
over $130,000, the CA considered 6 years to be the appropriate global
M M
starting point.
N N
27. In the present cases, at least 2 of the aggravating factors as
O O
mentioned by the CA in Cheng Wai Kai, viz., (5) & (6), are engaged. D had
P 13 previous convictions, 10 of which were similar to the present offences. P
He was only released from prison 3 months prior to the present offences
Q Q
after serving his sentence for a similar offence. He committed 6 offences
R within a period of 3 weeks. For each of these factors 3 months will be added R
S 6 S
unrep. CACC 338/2007, 29 May 2008
7
unrep., CACC 62/2009, 14 July 2009
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
to the starting point, adjusting it upwards to 24 months.
C C
28. D pleaded guilty to all Charges at the first available opportunity,
D D
and is entitled to the full 1/3 discount. There is no other mitigating factor
E warranting further reduction of the sentence for each Charge. E
F F
29. Although the Charges were separated into 2 cases, they were
G all committed by D with similar modus operandi within a short period of G
time. These offences were committed in different premises against different
H H
victims on different dates, except the 1st and 2nd Charges in DCCC 205/2025
I which were committed on the same date, consecutive sentences should be I
imposed. However, taking totality principle into account, I consider that a
J J
global starting point of 48 months is appropriate to reflect the overall
K criminality of D for these offences. With the 1/3 reduction for his timely K
guilty plea, the total sentence should be 32 months.
L L
M 30. For the 6 Charges D is facing in respect of the 2 cases, he is M
sentenced as follows:
N N
O DCCC 205/2025 O
Charge 1 : 16 months
P P
Charge 2 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
Q Charge 3 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1 Q
Total : 16 months
R R
S DCCC 59/2025 S
Charge 1 : 16 months
T T
Charge 2 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Charge 3 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
C Total : 16 months, to be served consecutively to the sentence in C
DCCC 205/2025
D D
E Total sentence for the 2 cases: 32 months E
F F
G G
( Bernard Chung )
H Deputy District Judge 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
A A
B B
DCCC 59 & 205/2025 (Heard together)
[2025] HKDC 1747
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 59 OF 2025
F F
G G
---------------------------------------
H
HKSAR H
v
I I
XU Weimin （許偉民） Defendant
J --------------------------------------- J
K K
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
L HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION L
CRIMINAL CASE NO 205 OF 2025
M M
N --------------------------------------- N
HKSAR
O O
v
P XU Weimin （許偉民） Defendant P
Q
--------------------------------------- Q
R R
Before: Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung
S
Date: 13 October 2025 S
Present: Mr Lai Anson, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
T T
Mr Ah-weng Jonathan Winston, instructed by Messrs James W
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
L Li & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
C Defendant C
Offence: DCCC 59/2025
D D
[1] – [3] Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
E DCCC 205/2025 E
[1] – [3] Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
F F
G --------------------------------------- G
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
H H
---------------------------------------
I I
J
1. The defendant XU Weimin (D) appeared before me in relation J
to 2 separate cases (DCCC 59 of 2025 & DCCC 205 of 2025), each
K K
involving 3 Charges. All 6 Charges are “Burglary”, contrary to section
L
11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The 3 Charges in DCCC L
59/2025 occurred in Mong Kok area while those in DCCC 205/2025
M M
occurred in Kwun Tong area. He pleaded guilty to all 6 Charges and
N admitted to the Summary of Facts relating to each Charge as presented by N
the Prosecution.
O O
P 2. On his application, Sentence of the 2 cases are to be dealt with P
together.
Q Q
R Facts R
S 3. The facts of each Charge as admitted by D are summarised in S
the following paragraphs. The offences in DCCC 205/2025 occurred before
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
those in DCCC 59/2025, I will deal with them according to the time
C sequence. C
D D
DCCC 205/2025
E E
1st Charge
F F
4. The premises concerned was a snack shop situated at Shop No.
G G
1A, Ground Floor, Block 3, Camel Paint Building, No. 60 Hoi Yuen Road,
H
Kwun Tong. It was about 200 square feet in size. There was a roller gate H
fixed at the entrance, but it was never rolled down when the shop was briefly
I I
closed for business at around dawn every day. A red rubbish bin was place
J at the entrance to block the entrance to prevent others from entering during J
the period.
K K
L 5. At around 05:50 hours on 10 August 2024 when the shop was L
left unattended, D pushed the red rubbish bin aside and entered the shop.
M M
He took away cash of HKD (same below) $600 which was placed in a red
N bucket placed inside the shop and left. N
O O
2nd Charge
P P
6. Earl’s Café was located at Shop No. A, Ground Floor, Sun
Q Wing Building, No. 48 Tsun Yip Street, Kwun Tong. It operated between Q
07:00 and 22:00 hours every day.
R R
S 7. At around 05:30 hours on 10 August 2024, staff of the Café S
returned and left the gate at the entrance half opened. At around 06:00 hours
T T
D entered the Café, approached the cashier, prized open the drawer of the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
cashier with a pair of scissors and took away cash $8,000 therefrom and left.
C C
3rd Charge
D D
8. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shop C,
E E
Ground Floor, Montery Plaza, No. 15 Chong Yip Street, Kwun Tong. It
F operated between 07:30 and 03:30 hours every day. F
G G
9. At around 03:00 hours on 14 August 2024, when the restaurant
H was unattended, D opened the gate, entered the restaurant, prized open the H
drawer of the cashier and took away $19,000 therefrom and left.
I I
J DCCC 59/2025 J
K K
1st Charge
L L
10. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shops A &
M B, Ground Floor, No. 393-395 Reclamation Street, Mong Kok. At around M
01:35 hours on 27 August 2024, D pushed the unlocked button of the
N N
electric roller shutter at the entrance and the shutter was raised and became
O open. D then entered and approached the cashier machine with an open O
umbrella to block himself from the CCTV. He opened the cashier machine,
P P
took away cash $15,500 therefrom and left.
Q Q
2nd Charge
R R
S 11. The premises concerned was a snack shop located at Shop C, S
Ground Floor, On May Mansion, 597A-599A, Shanghai Street, Mong Kok.
T T
At around 06:12 hours on 29 August 2024, D entered the shop through its
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
open gate and took away around $2,000 cash therein. He stayed for about
C 26 seconds and left. C
D D
3rd Charge
E E
12. The premises concerned was a restaurant located at Shops B3,
F F
B4, D & E, Ground Floor, Far East Consortium Mong Kok Building, 240-
G 244 Portland Street, Mong Kok. G
H H
13. At around 04:51 hours on 31 August 2024, the door of the
I restaurant had been opened by staff who had earlier arrived to prepare for I
work but the restaurant was not yet open for business. D entered the
J J
restaurant through the open door, went to the cashier machine and attempted
K to open it and the drawer underneath it but was unable to do so. He left and K
returned about 5 minutes later. Armed with an object he prized open the
L L
drawer underneath the cashier machine and took away around $3,190 cash
M therefrom and left. M
N N
Arrest and cautioned statements of D
O O
14. The cases were reported to the police. A police officer
P P
conducted analysis of the CCTVs available at various locations at or near
Q the premises concerned in DCCC 59/2025. At around 13:49 hours on 2 Q
September 2024, when the officer was conducting investigation at Kwong
R R
Fu Building, 38 Kam Lam Street, Mong Kok, D happened to pass by. The
S officer noticed D’s appearance matched the culprit depicted in the CCTV S
footages and intercepted D.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
15. At the time of interception, D had with him a red recycle bag,
C which contained 2 transparent resealable plastic bags each containing 20 C
$5 coins (i.e. a total of $200). Cash of $708.2 was also found in his trousers
D D
pocket. The red recycle bag carried by D looked identical to the one carried
E by the culprit in some of the Charges, the jeans and slippers worn by D also E
looked the same as those worn by the culprit.
F F
G 16. D was arrested. In the subsequent VRIs conducted under G
caution, he readily admitted to having committed all the offences mentioned
H H
above. He stated that he had spent all the money stolen from these offences
I on food and cigarettes. I
J J
Defendant’s Backgrounds and Mitigation
K K
17. D is now 53 years old, born in Fujian, Mainland China on 22
L July 1972. He came to settle in Hong Kong in 2013. He separated from his L
wife in 2022 and the 2 daughters, aged 22 and 11, followed the wife. Since
M M
then he had lost contact with them. He had been unemployed since 2019,
N N
relying on friends for his living. He claimed to have no fixed place of
O
abode. O
P P
18. D has 13 previous convictions on 6 Court appearances, 10 of
Q which were similar to the present offences. His last conviction came on 29 Q
April 2024 when he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for one count
R R
of “Burglary”, and was released from prison on 29 May 2024, after serving
S out his sentence. S
T T
19. On behalf of D in relation to both cases, Mr Jonathan Ah-weng
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
submitted in mitigation that D frankly admitted to the offences to the police
C after his arrest, and pleaded guilty in Court at the first available opportunity. C
The offences arose sadly out of D’s financial desperation, and not motivated
D D
by greed or drug addiction.
E E
20. As to assessment of sentence, Mr Ah-weng stated that all
F F
premises concerned were non-domestic premises. Citing HKSAR v Sim Ka
G Wing1, he accepted that the normal starting point for burglary involving G
such premises is 2 1/2 years imprisonment. He also conceded that D had
H H
previous similar convictions and that he used tools to prize open the drawers
I in the cashiers in some of the Charges involved. However, relying on the I
comments by the CA in that case and HKSAR v Lee Chiu Yui（李釗銳又
J J
名李朝銳） , he submitted that the offences committed by D in the present
2
K K
cases were more akin to an “opportunistic burglar” or a “sneak thief ”
L
scenario, so that the Court can adopt a lower starting point. Mr Ah-weng L
further submitted that in the present cases, D acted alone and did not use
M M
any tools to gain access, there is no evidence of any sophisticated planning
N and minimal property damage, if any, had been caused to the premises N
concerned. Mr Ah-weng urged the Court to take into account the totality
O O
principle and be as lenient as possible to D.
P P
Sentence
Q Q
21. It is well established that the normal starting point for burglary
R R
S S
1
unrep., CACC 450/2000, 30 May 2001
T T
2
unrep., CACC 24/2014, 15 October 2014
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
involving non-domestic premises is 2 1/2 years imprisonment 3.
C C
4
22. In Sim Ka Wing the CA stated :
D D
“9. The conventional starting-point of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment
for the burglary of non-domestic premises relates to burglaries
E with no aggravating or mitigating features. Such burglaries will E
involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation
and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point.
F The conventional starting-point can be lowered in the case of the F
opportunistic burglar, akin perhaps to the sneak thief who walks
G into an open office to steal whatever he can find. Likewise, the G
conventional starting-point can be increased in the case of
professional criminals who plan their burglaries with meticulous
H care and steal goods and cash of considerable value.” H
I I
23. In HKSAR v Cheung To Ming（張道明） 5 , applying the
J principle of “opportunistic burglar”, the CA adopted 18 months as the J
appropriate starting point for a similar offence.
K K
L 24. In the context of the present cases, I accept the submissions L
by Mr Ah-weng that the offences committed by D were more akin to an
M M
“opportunistic burglar” or a “sneak thief ” scenario. The premises
N concerned were all unattended and had their doors opened or unlocked N
when D entered; he acted alone; he did not engage any substantial
O O
equipment; no serious damage had been caused to the premises and the
P value of the property stolen was not high. I am prepared to adopt a lower P
starting point of 18 months for each offence.
Q Q
R R
S 3 S
See e.g., R v Wong Man, unrep. CACC 372/1992, 30 March 1993
4
supra
T T
5
[2006] 2 HKLRD 259
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
25. However, in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai（鄭偉佳）6, the CA
C stated: C
“15. The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are
D D
aggravating circumstances such as; (1) the offence is carefully
planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy
E instrument or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or E
more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and
involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional
F F
burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous
convictions, particularly previous conviction of similar nature,
G and (6) the offender commits multiple offences. G
16. If the offences were committed in different premises against
H different victims on different dates, consecutive sentences should H
be imposed…”
I I
26. In HKSAR v Fan Kit Hung （范傑雄） 7 ，the CA added
J J
causing substantial damage to the premises as another aggravating
K K
circumstance. Also, in that case the appellant committed 13 burglaries on
L shop premises within a period of 4 months, with stolen properties worth L
over $130,000, the CA considered 6 years to be the appropriate global
M M
starting point.
N N
27. In the present cases, at least 2 of the aggravating factors as
O O
mentioned by the CA in Cheng Wai Kai, viz., (5) & (6), are engaged. D had
P 13 previous convictions, 10 of which were similar to the present offences. P
He was only released from prison 3 months prior to the present offences
Q Q
after serving his sentence for a similar offence. He committed 6 offences
R within a period of 3 weeks. For each of these factors 3 months will be added R
S 6 S
unrep. CACC 338/2007, 29 May 2008
7
unrep., CACC 62/2009, 14 July 2009
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
to the starting point, adjusting it upwards to 24 months.
C C
28. D pleaded guilty to all Charges at the first available opportunity,
D D
and is entitled to the full 1/3 discount. There is no other mitigating factor
E warranting further reduction of the sentence for each Charge. E
F F
29. Although the Charges were separated into 2 cases, they were
G all committed by D with similar modus operandi within a short period of G
time. These offences were committed in different premises against different
H H
victims on different dates, except the 1st and 2nd Charges in DCCC 205/2025
I which were committed on the same date, consecutive sentences should be I
imposed. However, taking totality principle into account, I consider that a
J J
global starting point of 48 months is appropriate to reflect the overall
K criminality of D for these offences. With the 1/3 reduction for his timely K
guilty plea, the total sentence should be 32 months.
L L
M 30. For the 6 Charges D is facing in respect of the 2 cases, he is M
sentenced as follows:
N N
O DCCC 205/2025 O
Charge 1 : 16 months
P P
Charge 2 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
Q Charge 3 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1 Q
Total : 16 months
R R
S DCCC 59/2025 S
Charge 1 : 16 months
T T
Charge 2 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Charge 3 : 16 months, concurrent with Charge 1
C Total : 16 months, to be served consecutively to the sentence in C
DCCC 205/2025
D D
E Total sentence for the 2 cases: 32 months E
F F
G G
( Bernard Chung )
H Deputy District Judge 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