HKSAR v. Ahmed Naseer

DCCC 923/2025

[2026] HKDC 1091

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 923 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Ahmed faces a charge sheet consisting of two charges of Burglary, contrary respectively to section 11(1)(a)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 6 March 2025, in Hong Kong, entered as a trespasser part of a building known as 2^nd Floor, Hotel Cozi · Oasis, Nos 443-451 Castle Peak Road – Kwai Chung, Kwai Chung, New Territories, with intent to steal therein.

3.Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on the same day, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Room 908, Hotel Cozi · Oasis, Nos 443-451 Castle Peak Road – Kwai Chung, Kwai Chung, New Territories, stole therein one jacket, cash of ¥500 Renminbi and one bag.

4.Before me, Mr Ahmed pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to Charge 2.

5.Prosecution asked that Charge 1 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  Upon conviction of Mr Ahmed on Charge 2, I so ordered.

Facts admitted by Mr Ahmed

6.On 6 March 2025, at 7:30 am, when PW1 woke up in his hotel room ie Room 908, Hotel Cozi · Oasis in Kwai Chung, he found his deep blue jacket (“E1”)(valued at RMB12,000)  with cash of RMB500 inside, and his brown sling bag (“E2”)(valued at RMB300)  missing.  The case was reported.

7.CCTV footage of the hotel revealed that on 6 March 2025:

(a)  At 3:12 am, Mr Ahmed entered the hotel via its unlocked rear door;

(b)  At 3:14 am, he wandered around the lift lobby on G/F;

(c)  At 4:21 am, he walked along the corridor on 9/F without holding anything on his hands, then pushed open the door of Room 908 using bare hands;

(d)  He entered Room 908, stayed inside for about 23 seconds, and left holding a bag with his left hand; and

(e)  At 4:29 am, he left the hotel via another unlocked rear door, holding a bag and a dark jacket with his left hand.

8.At about 4:30 pm the same day, police intercepted Mr Ahmed when he was coming out of his residence in Tai Wo Hau Estate, Kwai Chung.  He was arrested for burglary.  Under caution, Mr Ahmed admitted in Cantonese that:

(a)  He entered the aforementioned hotel, opened the door of Room 908 and stole property as he had no money; and

(b)  He had spent all the money he had stolen.

9.Upon a house search of Mr Ahmed’s residence, police found and seized E1, E2, and the clothes and shoes that Mr Ahmed was seen to be wearing as per CCTV footage.

10.During a VRI conducted on the same day, Mr Ahmed stated that:-

(a)  He was the male captured by the CCTV;

(b)  In the small hours of the day, he walked past the subject hotel and found the iron gate of the G/F rear door not shut properly; he pushed open the gate and walked to a staircase;

(c)  He walked upstairs and accessed every floor of the hotel to try open room doors until he found a room on 9/F unlocked because the door was obstructed by a security lock on the wall;

(d)  He opened the door and heard a male snoring inside;

(e)  He extended his arm into the room to a clothes rack next to the door and took out a blue/dark jacket and a sling bag and left;

(f)  He walked down by the stairs and left the hotel via the main entrance before walking home; and

(g)  He woke up at 8 to 9 am the same day then spent all the money.

Criminal record

11.Mr Ahmed has 4 previous convictions, none similar.  However, his last conviction, one of possession of dangerous drug resulted in a sentence (passed on 4 February 2025)  of 14 days’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

Antecedents

12.Mr Ahmed is aged almost 31 (29 at the time of the offence), educated to F3 level in Hong Kong.  Before arrest, he worked as a construction worker.  Mr Ahmed is married and was living with his wife, two daughters and one son in public housing in Tai Wo Hau.

Mitigation

13.Mr Joshua Ngai of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Ahmed.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

14.Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.  The only loss to the victim was RMB500 as the jacket and the sling bag have been recovered.

15.Mr Ahmed was born in Pakistan and moved to Hong Kong in 2000, and graduated from F3 education.  He is a married man and has 2 daughters (aged 7 and 2)  and a son (aged 5).

16.Mr Ahmed’s parents are currently in Pakistan.  Mr Ahmed’s family including his parents are financially dependent on him.  He is the sole financial support of the family.

17.He had previously been a construction worker, with monthly income of about $15,000.  However, before the present offence, he had been unemployed for 6 months.

18.Mr Ahmed has one theft conviction among his previous convictions.  Mr Ngai asked the court not to treat Mr Ahmed as a repeat offender.

19.In HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338, the appropriate starting point of sentence for a burglary happening in a hotel room was set to at least 36 months’ imprisonment (para 31).  The reason, as stated in para 27, was stated as follows:

“27. The judge, in adopting a sentence of 3 years for the charge of burglary, took the view that hotel room should be categorized as domestic premises for sentencing purpose. He said:

‘It is true that a hotel is not a home – it is different from people’s room – and also true that the guests have to pay for their accommodation, so that they are commercial in that sense. However, in my view, the hotel has more in common with domestic premises than non-domestic premises for the purposes of sentencing and the purposes of the guidelines. A hotel is after all intended to be a “home away from home” for travellers, and the victims were sleeping in what they thought was the security and safety and comfort of their own bedroom at the time, which is quite different from commercial premises in the normal sense of that term.’”

20.Also, in paras 29 and 30, it was stated that:

“29. It may not be too helpful to decide if a hotel room should be categorized as domestic or non-domestic for sentencing purpose. A hotel is a category of its own. But the aggravating factor involved in burglary of domestic premises is certainly present in the case of burglary of a hotel room.

30. Indeed a hotel is meant for visitors to whom the trauma of being burgled may well in some case be more profound and intense, particularly if passports, credit cards and spending money or the like are stolen. The image of Hong Kong in the international community will also be significantly affected by such crime.”

21.Mr Ngai asked the court to adopt a starting point of 36 months.

22.Mr Ngai submitted that there were no aggravating factors in this case.

23.Mr Ngai submitted on behalf of Mr Ahmed a mitigation letter written by Mr Ahmed himself.  The contents generally are that Mr Ahmed apologizes for taking up the court’s time; that he is deeply ashamed and remorseful for committing the offence and he will never do it again; he asks for a lenient sentence so he may return to take care of his family.

Sentence

24.I shall as urged by Mr Ngai adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for Mr Ahmed’s burglary of a hotel room.

25.Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

26.Mr Ahmed committed the present offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence.  I cannot find any reason not to activate that sentence to the fullest extent and make it run consecutively to the present sentence, totality considered.

(Mr Ahmed, please stand)

27.The sentence on Charge 2 is 2 years’ imprisonment.  I activate the suspended sentence of 14 days’ imprisonment imposed in WK/5346/24 and order it to run consecutively to the present sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.