HKSAR v. Muhammad Shehbaz (also known as Muhmmad Sahbaz and Muhmmad Shambaz)

DCCC 562/2020

[2021] HKDC 706

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 562 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant, a Form 8 recognizance holder, pleads guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in the summary of facts admitted by the defendant today.   In summary at around 2300 hours on 31 January 2020 Ms Leong, who lives on the 2nd Floor, No. 121 Apliu Street in Sham Shui Po, went to sleep having first checked the doors and windows of her home were secured. 

3.When Ms Leong woke up the next morning at about 0800 hours she discovered signs of ransacking in her home.  The kitchen window had been prized open. 

4.A locked drawer of the bedside cabinet had also been prized open.  HK$10,000; about MOP$30,000; about ¥8,000 Renminbi and one pair of earrings were stolen from the drawer.  Ms Leong’s Hong Kong identity card and HK$2,000 were stolen from Ms Leong’s wallet which was placed in her rucksack in the living room. A bag was also stolen from the rucksack.

5.The defendant’s fingerprint was found on a knife which Ms Leong kept next to the kitchen window.  Photographs of the flat and the knife have been submitted to court.

6.The defendant was arrested on 22 April 2020. 

Mitigation

7.In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Donald, including that the defendant, who is 43 married to a Hong Kong resident and has a son aged 5, came to Hong Kong from Pakistan in 2001[2]. 

8.Mr Donald explains that the defendant committed the burglary because he was in desperate need of money for medical treatment for his father who had been diagnosed with cancer.  Sadly the father passed away in May 2020[3]. 

9.I take into account that the defendant is blind in his right eye as a result of an infection and that he also suffers from asthma.  I have also read the mitigation letter written by the defendant’s mother-in-law. 

Starting point

10.The correct starting point for a single burglary of domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years’ imprisonment. 

Aggravating factors

11.The burglary was of occupied premises and took place in the early hours of the morning when occupants were highly likely to be at home[4]. Fortunately, there was no confrontation. 

12.The defendant has appeared in court on 7 occasions accumulating a total of 9 convictions, including theft and burglary.  The defendant last appeared in court on 7 March 2019 when he was sentenced in DCCC 758/2019 to 12 months’ imprisonment for burglary.  The defendant was released from prison on 17 August 2019[5].  Less than six months later the defendant committed the burglary.  I am satisfied the defendant is a persistent offender.

13.The defendant is a Form 8 recognizance holder.  The commission of offences by refugees or torture claimants is capable of aggravating sentence where the offence affects the community at large and has a significant impact on Hong Kong’s reputation for order and security. 

14.I am satisfied offences of burglary affects the community at large and has a significant impact on Hong Kong’s reputation for order and security[6].  

15.I am satisfied a total enhancement of 6 months’ imprisonment to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for the aggravating factors and is not disproportionate to the culpability of the defendant[7].

16.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.