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

DCCC 460/2025

[2026] HKDC 1024

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 460 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He broke into the home of an old lady and stole some cash and a vase.

Summary of Facts

2.Madam Chan (PW1; aged 85) resided alone at a flat situated at 7^th Floor, Ming Chu Building, Nos.195-201 Apliu Street, Sham Shui Po ("the Flat"). In late December 2024, bamboo scaffolding was erected on the outer walls of Ming Chu Building.

3.PW1 went to bed around 9:00 p.m. on 29 December 2024.  The windows of the Flat were left open.  About 6:00 a.m. on 30 December 2024, PW1 discovered that the coins placed on the table in the living room were missing.  About 9:00 in the same morning, PW1 further discovered that the $900 cash placed in her handbag and the $100 note placed on the table were missing as well.  She also noticed signs of ransacking in the Flat.  She then alerted the police.  Upon checking, PW1 confirmed that cash in the sum of $1,000 and a vase were missing.

4.CCTV footage of Ming Chu Building captured a non-Chinese male (with a sparkly earring on his right ear, wearing a long-sleeved black top with black & white stripes underneath, khaki pants and brown moccasins) climbing on the bamboo scaffolding near the 8^th Floor from 9:07 to 9:08 p.m. on 29 December 2024.

5.CCTV footage of the building[1] next to Ming Chu Building captured a non-Chinese male (wearing a black jacket with a rectangular logo on the left sleeve and khaki pants) holding a vase walking down the stairs around 9:39 p.m. on 29 December 2024.  He then entered a massage parlour.  When he left the massage parlour around 11:02 in the same evening, he was holding a big white plastic bag which appeared to contain something.

6.On 31 December 2024, PC 15119 (PW2) intercepted the defendant in the 1^st Floor corridor of the building situated at Nos.232-234 Yu Chau Street, Sham Shui Po.  He was holding a plastic bag containing a ceramic vase.  PW2 arrested the defendant for "Burglary".

7.The defendant's home situated at 1^st Floor, Nos.232-234 Yu Chau Street was searched.  The following items were found:  a black jacket with a rectangular logo on the left sleeve; a pair of khaki pants; a T-shirt with black & white stripes; a pair of brown moccasins; and a sparkly earring.

8.In his written record of interview, the defendant admitted, through an Urdu interpreter, that he had stolen $1,000 cash and a vase.

9.PW1 identified the vase seized from the defendant as hers.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 46 and has 9 conviction records, which included 2 "Burglary" offences and 1 "Theft" offence. He is a Form 8 holder. Defence counsel Mr. Fu informed me that the defendant was married to a local lady, but is now divorced. He has a son (aged 10) with his ex-wife, who looks after the boy. In mitigation, Mr. Fu submitted that the defendant's right eye is completely blind. He also suffers from asthma and lower back pain. He intends to return to Pakistan after serving his sentence.

11.I have sympathy for people who need to escape from their homeland for various reasons (political, religious or otherwise) to seek refuge in another country. I understand that the verification of a non-refoulement claim can be a lengthy process. I also appreciate that disappointment and frustration may result from the unknown period of waiting. Be that as it may, Form 8 holders must behave themselves and obey the law in return for the hospitality extended to them by Hong Kong.

12.As a Form 8 holder, although the defendant is unable to earn any income, his basic needs such as housing and food are provided for by the government and/or NGOs. Furthermore, his current wife is a local person, who should be able to work in Hong Kong.

13.I have borne in mind the principles set out by the Court of Appeal on sentencing criminals with Form 8 holder status[2]. By its nature as well as the circumstances of its commission, the present burglary offence clearly has a serious detrimental effect on the community at large. The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3years' imprisonment. I would increase the starting point to 39 months because of the defendant's Form 8 holder status. I would further increase the starting point to 42 months because this is his 3^rd burglary offence since 2019. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 28 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 28 months' imprisonment.