A A
B B
DCCC 248/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2154 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 248 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I ZHENG YUBING (D1) I
YE XIANGYONG (D2)
J J
ZHENG SHUREN (D3)
K ---------------------------- K
L L
Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court
M Date: 18 December 2025 M
Present: Mr Cheung Man Fai Jeremy, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
N N
Mr Ngai Jun Joshua, instructed by Kwok, Ng & Chan,
O assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant O
Mr Luk Wai Hung Albert, instructed by Cheung Wong &
P P
nd
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2
Q defendant Q
Mr Sher Hon Piu, instructed by Kwok Hei Law Office,
R R
rd
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3 defendant
S Offences: [1] Burglary (入屋犯法罪) S
T [2] Going equipped for stealing (外出時備有偷竊用的物品) T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
---------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
---------------------------------------
D D
E 1. D1 to D3 pleaded guilty to two joint charges on a Charge E
Sheet as follows.
F F
G 2. Charge 1 is Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of G
the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that they, on 1 May 2024, in
H H
Hong Kong, having entered as trespassers a building known as No 41, Yue
I Kok Tsuen, Ting Kok Road, Tai Po, New Territories, stole therein cash of I
$5,000 Hong Kong currency, cash of 4,500 Yuan Renminbi and one watch.
J J
K 3. Charge 2 is Going equipped for stealing, contrary to section K
27(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that they, on 2 May
L L
2024, outside Wing Wo Building, Nos 22-34 Wan Tau Square, Tai Po,
M New Territories, in Hong Kong, not being at their place of abode, had with M
them articles, namely 3 crowbars, two iron pipes, four torches, 27 pieces
N N
of gloves, 10 masks and 8 pieces of plastic for use in the course of or in
O connection with theft. O
P P
Facts admitted by D1 to D3
Q Q
4. D1, D2, and D3 were holders of Hong Kong and Macao
R R
Travel Permits.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge 1
C C
5. The village house at No 41 Yue Kok Tsuen, Tai Po (“the
D D
Premises”), was a domestic premises. The location was not a tourist spot.
E E
6. On 1 May 2024, at about 1650 hours, PW1, an occupant of
F F
the Premises, left the Premises with its interior intact. Later, at about 2115
G hours, PW1 returned and found the premises ransacked. The window G
frame of a room had been prized open. Cash of HK$5,000 and CNY4,500
H H
and a watch with distinctive engraving at the back (with estimated value
I HK$1,382) were missing. Case was reported to the police. I
J J
7. CCTV in the vicinity captured images of D1 to D3 lingering
K there between 1602 and 2001 hours the same day. K
L L
Charge 2
M M
8. On 2 May 2024, at about 1220 hours, D1 to D3 were lingering
N N
furtively near Wing Wo Building, Tai Po. D2 entered two tenement
O buildings for about one minute each. D1 to D3 kept staring at the O
scaffolding outside a building.
P P
Q 9. At about 1300 hours, D3 was intercepted by the police. Upon Q
search, a pair of gloves, a mobile phone, cash of HK$100 and CNY1,500
R R
was found on D3.
S S
10. At about 1310 hours, D2 was similarly intercepted. Upon
T T
search, 8 pieces of plastic, 17 pieces of gloves and 10 masks and CNY160
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
were found in D2’s backpack; and a mobile phone, cash of CNY2,330 and
C HK$700 were found in his pants pocket. In D2’s mobile phone, a text C
conversation between D2 and another person shows D2 shared a location
D D
at Yue Kok Tsuen on 1 May 2024 at about 1615 hours.
E E
11. At about 1312 hours, D1 was similarly intercepted. Upon
F F
search, 3 crowbars, 2 metal pipes, 2 torches, 4 pairs of gloves, cash of
G CNY730 and some personal items were found in his backpack; and 2 other G
torches, a mobile phone and cash of HK$3,944.60 were found in his pants
H H
pocket. In the meantime, D1 removed a watch (later confirmed to be the
I missing watch) from his left wrist. Two photos of this watch were found I
in D1’s mobile phone. A text conversation between D1 and another person
J J
shows D1 shared his location at Tai Po on 1 May 2024 at about 1648 hours.
K K
12. At about 1420 hours, D1 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs,
L L
D1 stated:-
M M
(a) He entered Hong Kong on 1 May 2024 between about
N N
1100 and 1200 hours;
O O
(b) He could stay in Hong Kong for 7 days at maximum for
P P
each visit;
Q Q
(c) He did not have in his possession the tools seized (ie 3
R R
crowbars, 2 metal pipes, 2 torches, 4 pairs of gloves)
S when he entered Hong Kong on 1 May 2024; S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(d) He picked up those tools in Sham Shui Po on 10 April
C 2024 when he first visited Hong Kong; C
D D
(e) He intended to carry out temporary work with the tools;
E E
(f) The backpack seized on him did not belong to him; he
F F
picked it up somewhere;
G G
(g) The photos of the watch found in his mobile phone
H H
were sent from other persons;
I I
(h) The watch did not belong to him; and
J J
K (i) He was around Yue Kok Tsuen with D2 and D3 at the K
time shown by the CCTV footage.
L L
M 13. At about 1421 hours, D2 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs, M
D2 stated:-
N N
O (a) He intended to carry out temporary work with the O
gloves seized on him; and
P P
Q (b) He was at Yue Kok Tsuen on 1 May 2024 at about 1615 Q
hours.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
14. At about 1422 hours, D3 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs,
C D3 stated:- C
D D
(a) D1 introduced him to come to Hong Kong; he did not
E know D2; E
F F
(b) The white gloves seized on him belonged to D2; and
G G
(c) The person whose image was captured by the CCTV at
H H
Yue Kok Tsuen in the afternoon of 1 May 2024 was D3.
I I
15. The location of arrests was not a tourist spot.
J J
K 16. D2’s DNA was found on the missing watch. K
L L
17. TIC record shows that D1, D2 and D3 entered Hong Kong on
M 1 May 2024 at about 1300, 1259 and 1301 hours respectively via Heung M
Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point.
N N
O Criminal record O
P P
18. D1 has a clear record in Hong Kong.
Q Q
19. D2 has a clear record in Hong Kong.
R R
S 20. D3 has a clear record in Hong Kong. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
21. D1 is aged 35 (33 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan,
D D
educated to primary school level, has been a porter and decoration worker
E with unstable income. He was living with retired parents and an elder E
brother.
F F
G 22. D2 is aged 41 (39 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan, G
educated to primary school level, has been a painter and tailor with daily
H H
income of around RMB300. He was living with his parents and elder
I brother. I
J J
23. D3 is aged 51 (49 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan,
K educated to primary school level, has been a farmer with monthly income K
of around RMB6,000. He was living with his wife and two sons in
L L
Shenzhen.
M M
Mitigation
N N
O D1 O
P P
24. Mr Joshua Ngai of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
Q Aid mitigated on behalf of D1. The following is a summary of the Q
mitigation submissions.
R R
S 25. D1 grew up in Hunan. He graduated from elementary school S
(Primary 4) and arrived in Hong Kong on May 1, 2024, holding a two-way
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
permit. Before being detained, D1 lived in a village house in Hong Kong.
C D1 is unmarried. C
D D
26. D1 has been working as a farmer since 2006 in Hunan,
E earning approximately RMB3,000 per month. E
F F
27. D1 now admits that the three crowbars, two metal pipes, four
G torches, and four pairs of gloves were intended for use in the commission G
of a burglary, theft or related activities.
H H
I 28. The starting point for sentencing an offender in burglary of I
domestic premises is generally 3 years’ imprisonment.
J J
K 29. Regarding possession of items intended for theft, there are no K
specific guidelines. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Wai Tat
L L
[2023] HKCA 758 (Chinese Reasons for Judgment) found the usual
M appropriate sentencing benchmark for most cases is imprisonment for 9 to M
12 months (see para 27).
N N
O 30. D1 pleaded guilty to the charges, demonstrating his remorse. O
P P
31. For the burglary offence, it was simple and not sophisticated;
Q the victim’s watch has been recovered and the cash recovered can be Q
returned to the victim.
R R
S 32. For the possession offence, D1 was arrested on the street and S
did not progress beyond the preparatory stage of the substantive crime.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
33. D1 did not have a prior criminal record.
C C
34. Mr Ngai asked the court to minimize the effect of the
D D
following aggravating factors:
E E
(a) Joint enterprise;
F F
G (b) D1 came to Hong Kong to commit crimes; and G
H H
(c) A window was damaged in the burglary.
I I
35. Mr Ngai asked the court to bear in mind that the amount
J J
involved in the burglary was not large and there is no evidence to suggest
K that D1 was a professional burglar. K
L L
36. Mr Ngai asked that the enhancement of starting point for
M burglary charge due to aggravation should be below 3 months; that the M
majority of the sentence for the possession charge be served concurrently.
N N
O 37. Mr Ngai submitted on behalf of D1 a mitigation letter written O
in Chinese by D1 himself. The contents generally are that D1 was the
P P
economic pillar of the family; he committed the offences for economic
Q reason; that he promises not to reoffend and he hopes to be given a chance Q
for reform and to be passed a lenient sentence so he may return home early.
R R
S 38. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Ngai submitted that D1 was S
not the mastermind of the joint enterprise.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
D2
C C
39. Mr Albert Luk of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
D D
Aid mitigated on behalf of D2. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
40. D2 has no previous convictions in Hong Kong.
G G
41. D2 was born in Hunan. He arrived in Hong Kong on 1 May
H H
2024. He was educated to Primary 2 and is a divorced person. His 12-year
I old son is being taken care of by his ex-wife. I
J J
42. D2’s parents are both 63 years old.
K K
43. At the time of the offences, D2 was employed in Mainland as
L L
a painter, earning approximately RMB300 per day.
M M
44. D2 eventually buckled under significant economic pressure
N N
and gave in to a moment of greed which caused him to come to Hong Kong
O and commit the present offences. O
P P
45. D2 is deeply remorseful and has reflected upon his mistake
Q and is willing to accept the consequences. D2 is willing to make amends Q
and hopes to turn over a new leaf. He promises not to re-offend. D2 hopes
R R
for a lenient sentence so he may perform his obligations to his aged parents
S and young son earlier. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
46. In The Queen v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, the Court of
C Appeal stated that the starting point for burglary of domestic premises C
should be 3 years’ imprisonment.
D D
E 47. However, in the case of HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC E
339/2007, the Court of Appeal clarified that the starting point in burglary
F F
offences could be adjusted upwards if the following aggravating
G circumstances were established:- G
H H
(a) The offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed
I involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; I
J J
(b) The offence is committed by two or more people;
K K
(c) The offence targets at substantial premises and involves
L L
substantial properties;
M M
(d) The offender is a professional burglar and not just an
N N
opportunist;
O O
(e) The offender has previous convictions, particularly
P P
previous conviction of similar nature; and
Q Q
(f) The offender commits multiple offences.
R R
S 48. The loss is relatively small and the items and money stolen S
have been seized and will be returned to the owner(s). As such, the
T T
seriousness of the offence is relatively mild.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 49. In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin CACC 240/2012, the Court of Appeal C
stated that there are no guidelines for the sentencing of defendants for the
D D
offence of going equipped for stealing. However, as with all offences, the
E courts seek to attain facts of each case, including the circumstances in E
which the defendant was apprehended, the nature of the equipment carried,
F F
the nature of the defendant, his record (if any), the commission of the other
G offences at the same time as the subject offence, and the principle of totality. G
H H
50. Mr Luk urged the court to exercise discretion to allow the
I sentences for both offences to be served concurrently. I
J J
51. Mr Luk submitted a mitigation letter written in Chinese by D2
K himself. The contents generally are that D2 apologizes to the victim and K
Hong Kong society; he is remorseful for what he did out of greed; he
L L
deeply regrets what he did after reflection; he asks for a lenient sentence
M so he may correct his ways and start afresh. M
N N
52. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Luk submitted that D2 came
O to Hong Kong to make quick money eg find illegal employment but O
changed his mind to commit a burglary. Mr Luk also submitted that D2
P P
was not the mastermind of the joint enterprise.
Q Q
D3
R R
S 53. Mr Sher Hon Piu of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal S
Aid mitigated on behalf of D3. The following is a summary of the
T T
mitigation submissions.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C 54. D3 is married and was living in Hunan. He was a farmer with C
monthly earning of around RMB4,000.
D D
E 55. D3 has a clear record. E
F F
56. D3 received education up to Primary 5. D3 was living with
G his retired parents (over 70) and his two sons (27 and 22). His wife (51) is G
a kitchen assistant working in Guangzhou.
H H
I 57. D3 came to Hong Kong on strength of a two-way permit as I
visitor.
J J
K 58. D3 went along with D1 and D2 and arrived at the crime scene K
of Charge 1 and there committed a burglary offence.
L L
M 59. The following day, D3 went along with D1 and D2 and M
arrived at the Charge 2 crime scene. D3 now admits that the pair of gloves
N N
in his possession were intended to be used during the burglary.
O O
60. D3 deeply regrets what he had done and promises not to re-
P P
offend in Hong Kong.
Q Q
61. The starting point for domestic burglary shall be one of 3
R R
years’ imprisonment.
S S
62. In HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo CACC 181/2008, at para 18, the
T T
Court of Appeal reiterated that, for the offence of burglary of a residential
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
property, the three-year benchmark applies to an adult for first offender
C (see also The Queen v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, at para 7). C
D D
63. For the offence of “going equipped for stealing”, there is no
E fixed sentencing guideline. However, it is common for courts to adopt a E
starting point of 9 to 12 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 64. In HKSAR v Cheung Wai Tat CACC 222/2022 (Chinese G
Reasons for Judgment), at paras 26 and 28 (sic) 1 , the Court of Appeal
H H
discussed the relevant sentencing starting point. The appellant and
I respondent agreed that the starting point was generally 9 to 12 months’ I
imprisonment. Paragraph 26 (translation supplied by Mr Sher) in
J J
particular says this:
K K
“26. After reviewing a series of related cases, the Court of
L Appeal, in HKSAR v Li Ho Yin [CACC 240/2012], pointed out L
that when sentencing for “Going equipped for stealing”, the
following factors [can] be considered:
M M
(i) The circumstances of the arrest, including whether the
N offender had already finished the stage of searching for N
a target and preparing to commit the crime;
O (ii) The nature of the items involved; O
P (iii) The offender’s background and conviction record; P
(iv) Whether the offender is a professional burglar; [and]
Q Q
(v) Whether the offender was simultaneously committing
other offences at the time of arrest.”
R R
S 65. Mr Sher also cited a District Court sentencing case namely, S
HKSAR v Ho Chi Leung DCCC 620/2024, for reference.
T T
1
Should rather be “paras 26 to 28”
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
C 66. D3 pleaded guilty and would get the benefit of 1/3 sentencing C
discount. Mr Sher asked the court to consider the nature of the case, which
D D
involved the same series of criminal venture, and asked that part of the
E sentences for the two charges be made to run concurrently. E
F F
67. Mr Sher suggested a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment
G for Charge 1 and a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. G
H H
68. D3 hopes to be released as soon as possible and to return to
I his home town to resume work as a farmer. I
J J
69. Mr Sher submitted a mitigation letter written in Chinese by
K D3 himself. The contents are generally that D3 regrets what he has done K
and asks for a chance for reform and a lenient sentence so he may return to
L L
re-unite with his family earlier.
M M
70. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Sher said D3 was unwilling to
N N
tell why he came to Hong Kong. Mr Sher asked the court to determine for
O itself who was the mastermind of the joint enterprise. O
P P
Sentence
Q Q
71. For Charge 1, acceding to counsel’s submissions that the
R R
correct starting point for burglary of domestic premises would be 3 years’
S imprisonment without aggravation, I adopt exactly that as the initial S
starting point for all 3 defendants.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
72. Dealing with the dual aggravating factors of joint enterprise
C and coming to Hong Kong with the purpose of committing an offence or C
2
offences , I increase that starting point by 5 months. This is applicable to
D D
all three defendants.
E E
73. The recovered watch and the seized cash will be returned to
F F
the victims as part of the disposal of exhibits order so the loss suffered will
G be minimal. For this reason, I will reduce the starting point by one month. G
H H
74. From the evidence, it is unclear who among the trio was the
I mastermind in the joint enterprise of burglary. Hence, I shall treat them I
equally in terms of sentence.
J J
K 75. The possession of a myriad of housebreaking tools on the next K
day following the burglary is capable of suggesting the defendants were
L L
professional burglars. However, in order not to overload the starting point
M of Charge 1, I would prefer to deal with the possession aspect separately M
under Charge 2.
N N
O 76. Dealing with Charge 2, the total number of articles for use in O
the course of or in connection with theft was substantial. Bearing in mind
P P
the authorities referred to by counsel, I shall adopt an initial starting point
Q of 12 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
S S
T T
2
As regards the existence of the second aggravating factor, there is no doubt in my mind.
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
77. The same dual aggravating factors apply to all three
C defendants, though for the same reason, I cannot be sure who among the C
trio was the mastermind in the joint enterprise of the possession offence. I
D D
shall treat them equally by enhancing that starting point by 3 months only,
E in light of the lower initial starting point as compared to that of Charge 1. E
F F
78. D1 to D3 pleaded guilty in good time earning for themselves
G the full 1/3 sentencing discount. For Charge 1 only, because of their G
previous good character, I will grant each of them 20 more days’
H H
sentencing discount after the 1/3. There are no other mitigating factors of
I weight to warrant another sentence reduction. I
J J
79. The two offences were separate and distinct and were
K committed on different dates and at different places. In principle, they K
ought to attract consecutive sentences upon conviction. However, when
L L
determining the final aggregate sentence, I shall not lose sight of the totality
M principle as it applies to each of the three defendants. Neither shall I lose M
sight of the danger of double-counting the aggravating factor of coming to
N N
Hong Kong with the purpose of committing an offence or offences.
O O
(D1 to D3, please stand)
P P
Q 80. For Charge 1, the sentence for each of D1 to D3 is 26 months’ Q
imprisonment.
R R
S 81. For Charge 2, the sentence for each of D1 to D3 is 10 months’ S
imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
82. I order that 5 months of the sentence on Charge 2 do run
C consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence C
for each of D1 to D3 of 31 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
G G
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
A A
B B
DCCC 248/2025
C [2025] HKDC 2154 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 248 OF 2025
F F
G ---------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I ZHENG YUBING (D1) I
YE XIANGYONG (D2)
J J
ZHENG SHUREN (D3)
K ---------------------------- K
L L
Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court
M Date: 18 December 2025 M
Present: Mr Cheung Man Fai Jeremy, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
N N
Mr Ngai Jun Joshua, instructed by Kwok, Ng & Chan,
O assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant O
Mr Luk Wai Hung Albert, instructed by Cheung Wong &
P P
nd
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2
Q defendant Q
Mr Sher Hon Piu, instructed by Kwok Hei Law Office,
R R
rd
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3 defendant
S Offences: [1] Burglary (入屋犯法罪) S
T [2] Going equipped for stealing (外出時備有偷竊用的物品) T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
---------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
---------------------------------------
D D
E 1. D1 to D3 pleaded guilty to two joint charges on a Charge E
Sheet as follows.
F F
G 2. Charge 1 is Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of G
the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that they, on 1 May 2024, in
H H
Hong Kong, having entered as trespassers a building known as No 41, Yue
I Kok Tsuen, Ting Kok Road, Tai Po, New Territories, stole therein cash of I
$5,000 Hong Kong currency, cash of 4,500 Yuan Renminbi and one watch.
J J
K 3. Charge 2 is Going equipped for stealing, contrary to section K
27(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Particulars are that they, on 2 May
L L
2024, outside Wing Wo Building, Nos 22-34 Wan Tau Square, Tai Po,
M New Territories, in Hong Kong, not being at their place of abode, had with M
them articles, namely 3 crowbars, two iron pipes, four torches, 27 pieces
N N
of gloves, 10 masks and 8 pieces of plastic for use in the course of or in
O connection with theft. O
P P
Facts admitted by D1 to D3
Q Q
4. D1, D2, and D3 were holders of Hong Kong and Macao
R R
Travel Permits.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Charge 1
C C
5. The village house at No 41 Yue Kok Tsuen, Tai Po (“the
D D
Premises”), was a domestic premises. The location was not a tourist spot.
E E
6. On 1 May 2024, at about 1650 hours, PW1, an occupant of
F F
the Premises, left the Premises with its interior intact. Later, at about 2115
G hours, PW1 returned and found the premises ransacked. The window G
frame of a room had been prized open. Cash of HK$5,000 and CNY4,500
H H
and a watch with distinctive engraving at the back (with estimated value
I HK$1,382) were missing. Case was reported to the police. I
J J
7. CCTV in the vicinity captured images of D1 to D3 lingering
K there between 1602 and 2001 hours the same day. K
L L
Charge 2
M M
8. On 2 May 2024, at about 1220 hours, D1 to D3 were lingering
N N
furtively near Wing Wo Building, Tai Po. D2 entered two tenement
O buildings for about one minute each. D1 to D3 kept staring at the O
scaffolding outside a building.
P P
Q 9. At about 1300 hours, D3 was intercepted by the police. Upon Q
search, a pair of gloves, a mobile phone, cash of HK$100 and CNY1,500
R R
was found on D3.
S S
10. At about 1310 hours, D2 was similarly intercepted. Upon
T T
search, 8 pieces of plastic, 17 pieces of gloves and 10 masks and CNY160
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
were found in D2’s backpack; and a mobile phone, cash of CNY2,330 and
C HK$700 were found in his pants pocket. In D2’s mobile phone, a text C
conversation between D2 and another person shows D2 shared a location
D D
at Yue Kok Tsuen on 1 May 2024 at about 1615 hours.
E E
11. At about 1312 hours, D1 was similarly intercepted. Upon
F F
search, 3 crowbars, 2 metal pipes, 2 torches, 4 pairs of gloves, cash of
G CNY730 and some personal items were found in his backpack; and 2 other G
torches, a mobile phone and cash of HK$3,944.60 were found in his pants
H H
pocket. In the meantime, D1 removed a watch (later confirmed to be the
I missing watch) from his left wrist. Two photos of this watch were found I
in D1’s mobile phone. A text conversation between D1 and another person
J J
shows D1 shared his location at Tai Po on 1 May 2024 at about 1648 hours.
K K
12. At about 1420 hours, D1 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs,
L L
D1 stated:-
M M
(a) He entered Hong Kong on 1 May 2024 between about
N N
1100 and 1200 hours;
O O
(b) He could stay in Hong Kong for 7 days at maximum for
P P
each visit;
Q Q
(c) He did not have in his possession the tools seized (ie 3
R R
crowbars, 2 metal pipes, 2 torches, 4 pairs of gloves)
S when he entered Hong Kong on 1 May 2024; S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(d) He picked up those tools in Sham Shui Po on 10 April
C 2024 when he first visited Hong Kong; C
D D
(e) He intended to carry out temporary work with the tools;
E E
(f) The backpack seized on him did not belong to him; he
F F
picked it up somewhere;
G G
(g) The photos of the watch found in his mobile phone
H H
were sent from other persons;
I I
(h) The watch did not belong to him; and
J J
K (i) He was around Yue Kok Tsuen with D2 and D3 at the K
time shown by the CCTV footage.
L L
M 13. At about 1421 hours, D2 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs, M
D2 stated:-
N N
O (a) He intended to carry out temporary work with the O
gloves seized on him; and
P P
Q (b) He was at Yue Kok Tsuen on 1 May 2024 at about 1615 Q
hours.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
14. At about 1422 hours, D3 was arrested. In subsequent VRIs,
C D3 stated:- C
D D
(a) D1 introduced him to come to Hong Kong; he did not
E know D2; E
F F
(b) The white gloves seized on him belonged to D2; and
G G
(c) The person whose image was captured by the CCTV at
H H
Yue Kok Tsuen in the afternoon of 1 May 2024 was D3.
I I
15. The location of arrests was not a tourist spot.
J J
K 16. D2’s DNA was found on the missing watch. K
L L
17. TIC record shows that D1, D2 and D3 entered Hong Kong on
M 1 May 2024 at about 1300, 1259 and 1301 hours respectively via Heung M
Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point.
N N
O Criminal record O
P P
18. D1 has a clear record in Hong Kong.
Q Q
19. D2 has a clear record in Hong Kong.
R R
S 20. D3 has a clear record in Hong Kong. S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Antecedents
C C
21. D1 is aged 35 (33 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan,
D D
educated to primary school level, has been a porter and decoration worker
E with unstable income. He was living with retired parents and an elder E
brother.
F F
G 22. D2 is aged 41 (39 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan, G
educated to primary school level, has been a painter and tailor with daily
H H
income of around RMB300. He was living with his parents and elder
I brother. I
J J
23. D3 is aged 51 (49 at the time of the offences), born in Hunan,
K educated to primary school level, has been a farmer with monthly income K
of around RMB6,000. He was living with his wife and two sons in
L L
Shenzhen.
M M
Mitigation
N N
O D1 O
P P
24. Mr Joshua Ngai of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
Q Aid mitigated on behalf of D1. The following is a summary of the Q
mitigation submissions.
R R
S 25. D1 grew up in Hunan. He graduated from elementary school S
(Primary 4) and arrived in Hong Kong on May 1, 2024, holding a two-way
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
permit. Before being detained, D1 lived in a village house in Hong Kong.
C D1 is unmarried. C
D D
26. D1 has been working as a farmer since 2006 in Hunan,
E earning approximately RMB3,000 per month. E
F F
27. D1 now admits that the three crowbars, two metal pipes, four
G torches, and four pairs of gloves were intended for use in the commission G
of a burglary, theft or related activities.
H H
I 28. The starting point for sentencing an offender in burglary of I
domestic premises is generally 3 years’ imprisonment.
J J
K 29. Regarding possession of items intended for theft, there are no K
specific guidelines. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Wai Tat
L L
[2023] HKCA 758 (Chinese Reasons for Judgment) found the usual
M appropriate sentencing benchmark for most cases is imprisonment for 9 to M
12 months (see para 27).
N N
O 30. D1 pleaded guilty to the charges, demonstrating his remorse. O
P P
31. For the burglary offence, it was simple and not sophisticated;
Q the victim’s watch has been recovered and the cash recovered can be Q
returned to the victim.
R R
S 32. For the possession offence, D1 was arrested on the street and S
did not progress beyond the preparatory stage of the substantive crime.
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
33. D1 did not have a prior criminal record.
C C
34. Mr Ngai asked the court to minimize the effect of the
D D
following aggravating factors:
E E
(a) Joint enterprise;
F F
G (b) D1 came to Hong Kong to commit crimes; and G
H H
(c) A window was damaged in the burglary.
I I
35. Mr Ngai asked the court to bear in mind that the amount
J J
involved in the burglary was not large and there is no evidence to suggest
K that D1 was a professional burglar. K
L L
36. Mr Ngai asked that the enhancement of starting point for
M burglary charge due to aggravation should be below 3 months; that the M
majority of the sentence for the possession charge be served concurrently.
N N
O 37. Mr Ngai submitted on behalf of D1 a mitigation letter written O
in Chinese by D1 himself. The contents generally are that D1 was the
P P
economic pillar of the family; he committed the offences for economic
Q reason; that he promises not to reoffend and he hopes to be given a chance Q
for reform and to be passed a lenient sentence so he may return home early.
R R
S 38. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Ngai submitted that D1 was S
not the mastermind of the joint enterprise.
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
D2
C C
39. Mr Albert Luk of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
D D
Aid mitigated on behalf of D2. The following is a summary of the
E mitigation submissions. E
F F
40. D2 has no previous convictions in Hong Kong.
G G
41. D2 was born in Hunan. He arrived in Hong Kong on 1 May
H H
2024. He was educated to Primary 2 and is a divorced person. His 12-year
I old son is being taken care of by his ex-wife. I
J J
42. D2’s parents are both 63 years old.
K K
43. At the time of the offences, D2 was employed in Mainland as
L L
a painter, earning approximately RMB300 per day.
M M
44. D2 eventually buckled under significant economic pressure
N N
and gave in to a moment of greed which caused him to come to Hong Kong
O and commit the present offences. O
P P
45. D2 is deeply remorseful and has reflected upon his mistake
Q and is willing to accept the consequences. D2 is willing to make amends Q
and hopes to turn over a new leaf. He promises not to re-offend. D2 hopes
R R
for a lenient sentence so he may perform his obligations to his aged parents
S and young son earlier. S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
46. In The Queen v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, the Court of
C Appeal stated that the starting point for burglary of domestic premises C
should be 3 years’ imprisonment.
D D
E 47. However, in the case of HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC E
339/2007, the Court of Appeal clarified that the starting point in burglary
F F
offences could be adjusted upwards if the following aggravating
G circumstances were established:- G
H H
(a) The offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed
I involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; I
J J
(b) The offence is committed by two or more people;
K K
(c) The offence targets at substantial premises and involves
L L
substantial properties;
M M
(d) The offender is a professional burglar and not just an
N N
opportunist;
O O
(e) The offender has previous convictions, particularly
P P
previous conviction of similar nature; and
Q Q
(f) The offender commits multiple offences.
R R
S 48. The loss is relatively small and the items and money stolen S
have been seized and will be returned to the owner(s). As such, the
T T
seriousness of the offence is relatively mild.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 49. In HKSAR v Li Ho Yin CACC 240/2012, the Court of Appeal C
stated that there are no guidelines for the sentencing of defendants for the
D D
offence of going equipped for stealing. However, as with all offences, the
E courts seek to attain facts of each case, including the circumstances in E
which the defendant was apprehended, the nature of the equipment carried,
F F
the nature of the defendant, his record (if any), the commission of the other
G offences at the same time as the subject offence, and the principle of totality. G
H H
50. Mr Luk urged the court to exercise discretion to allow the
I sentences for both offences to be served concurrently. I
J J
51. Mr Luk submitted a mitigation letter written in Chinese by D2
K himself. The contents generally are that D2 apologizes to the victim and K
Hong Kong society; he is remorseful for what he did out of greed; he
L L
deeply regrets what he did after reflection; he asks for a lenient sentence
M so he may correct his ways and start afresh. M
N N
52. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Luk submitted that D2 came
O to Hong Kong to make quick money eg find illegal employment but O
changed his mind to commit a burglary. Mr Luk also submitted that D2
P P
was not the mastermind of the joint enterprise.
Q Q
D3
R R
S 53. Mr Sher Hon Piu of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal S
Aid mitigated on behalf of D3. The following is a summary of the
T T
mitigation submissions.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C 54. D3 is married and was living in Hunan. He was a farmer with C
monthly earning of around RMB4,000.
D D
E 55. D3 has a clear record. E
F F
56. D3 received education up to Primary 5. D3 was living with
G his retired parents (over 70) and his two sons (27 and 22). His wife (51) is G
a kitchen assistant working in Guangzhou.
H H
I 57. D3 came to Hong Kong on strength of a two-way permit as I
visitor.
J J
K 58. D3 went along with D1 and D2 and arrived at the crime scene K
of Charge 1 and there committed a burglary offence.
L L
M 59. The following day, D3 went along with D1 and D2 and M
arrived at the Charge 2 crime scene. D3 now admits that the pair of gloves
N N
in his possession were intended to be used during the burglary.
O O
60. D3 deeply regrets what he had done and promises not to re-
P P
offend in Hong Kong.
Q Q
61. The starting point for domestic burglary shall be one of 3
R R
years’ imprisonment.
S S
62. In HKSAR v Lau Kwok Wo CACC 181/2008, at para 18, the
T T
Court of Appeal reiterated that, for the offence of burglary of a residential
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
property, the three-year benchmark applies to an adult for first offender
C (see also The Queen v Chan Yui Man CACC 36/1988, at para 7). C
D D
63. For the offence of “going equipped for stealing”, there is no
E fixed sentencing guideline. However, it is common for courts to adopt a E
starting point of 9 to 12 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 64. In HKSAR v Cheung Wai Tat CACC 222/2022 (Chinese G
Reasons for Judgment), at paras 26 and 28 (sic) 1 , the Court of Appeal
H H
discussed the relevant sentencing starting point. The appellant and
I respondent agreed that the starting point was generally 9 to 12 months’ I
imprisonment. Paragraph 26 (translation supplied by Mr Sher) in
J J
particular says this:
K K
“26. After reviewing a series of related cases, the Court of
L Appeal, in HKSAR v Li Ho Yin [CACC 240/2012], pointed out L
that when sentencing for “Going equipped for stealing”, the
following factors [can] be considered:
M M
(i) The circumstances of the arrest, including whether the
N offender had already finished the stage of searching for N
a target and preparing to commit the crime;
O (ii) The nature of the items involved; O
P (iii) The offender’s background and conviction record; P
(iv) Whether the offender is a professional burglar; [and]
Q Q
(v) Whether the offender was simultaneously committing
other offences at the time of arrest.”
R R
S 65. Mr Sher also cited a District Court sentencing case namely, S
HKSAR v Ho Chi Leung DCCC 620/2024, for reference.
T T
1
Should rather be “paras 26 to 28”
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
C 66. D3 pleaded guilty and would get the benefit of 1/3 sentencing C
discount. Mr Sher asked the court to consider the nature of the case, which
D D
involved the same series of criminal venture, and asked that part of the
E sentences for the two charges be made to run concurrently. E
F F
67. Mr Sher suggested a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment
G for Charge 1 and a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. G
H H
68. D3 hopes to be released as soon as possible and to return to
I his home town to resume work as a farmer. I
J J
69. Mr Sher submitted a mitigation letter written in Chinese by
K D3 himself. The contents are generally that D3 regrets what he has done K
and asks for a chance for reform and a lenient sentence so he may return to
L L
re-unite with his family earlier.
M M
70. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Sher said D3 was unwilling to
N N
tell why he came to Hong Kong. Mr Sher asked the court to determine for
O itself who was the mastermind of the joint enterprise. O
P P
Sentence
Q Q
71. For Charge 1, acceding to counsel’s submissions that the
R R
correct starting point for burglary of domestic premises would be 3 years’
S imprisonment without aggravation, I adopt exactly that as the initial S
starting point for all 3 defendants.
T T
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
72. Dealing with the dual aggravating factors of joint enterprise
C and coming to Hong Kong with the purpose of committing an offence or C
2
offences , I increase that starting point by 5 months. This is applicable to
D D
all three defendants.
E E
73. The recovered watch and the seized cash will be returned to
F F
the victims as part of the disposal of exhibits order so the loss suffered will
G be minimal. For this reason, I will reduce the starting point by one month. G
H H
74. From the evidence, it is unclear who among the trio was the
I mastermind in the joint enterprise of burglary. Hence, I shall treat them I
equally in terms of sentence.
J J
K 75. The possession of a myriad of housebreaking tools on the next K
day following the burglary is capable of suggesting the defendants were
L L
professional burglars. However, in order not to overload the starting point
M of Charge 1, I would prefer to deal with the possession aspect separately M
under Charge 2.
N N
O 76. Dealing with Charge 2, the total number of articles for use in O
the course of or in connection with theft was substantial. Bearing in mind
P P
the authorities referred to by counsel, I shall adopt an initial starting point
Q of 12 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
S S
T T
2
As regards the existence of the second aggravating factor, there is no doubt in my mind.
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
77. The same dual aggravating factors apply to all three
C defendants, though for the same reason, I cannot be sure who among the C
trio was the mastermind in the joint enterprise of the possession offence. I
D D
shall treat them equally by enhancing that starting point by 3 months only,
E in light of the lower initial starting point as compared to that of Charge 1. E
F F
78. D1 to D3 pleaded guilty in good time earning for themselves
G the full 1/3 sentencing discount. For Charge 1 only, because of their G
previous good character, I will grant each of them 20 more days’
H H
sentencing discount after the 1/3. There are no other mitigating factors of
I weight to warrant another sentence reduction. I
J J
79. The two offences were separate and distinct and were
K committed on different dates and at different places. In principle, they K
ought to attract consecutive sentences upon conviction. However, when
L L
determining the final aggregate sentence, I shall not lose sight of the totality
M principle as it applies to each of the three defendants. Neither shall I lose M
sight of the danger of double-counting the aggravating factor of coming to
N N
Hong Kong with the purpose of committing an offence or offences.
O O
(D1 to D3, please stand)
P P
Q 80. For Charge 1, the sentence for each of D1 to D3 is 26 months’ Q
imprisonment.
R R
S 81. For Charge 2, the sentence for each of D1 to D3 is 10 months’ S
imprisonment.
T T
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
82. I order that 5 months of the sentence on Charge 2 do run
C consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence C
for each of D1 to D3 of 31 months’ imprisonment.
D D
E E
F F
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
G G
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
DCCC248/2025 HKSAR v. ZHENG YUBING AND OTHERS - LawHero