HKSAR v SHAKIR MEHMOOD

DCCC 766/2025

[2026] HKDC 1188

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 766 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges

1.D1 and D2 faced a joint charge of ‘Burglary’, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 (Charge 1).

2.In addition, D1 faced another charge of ‘Failure to comply with requirement to produce proof of identity for inspection’, contrary to section 49(1)  of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 (Charge 2).

3.D1 pleaded guilty to Charge 1 and admitted the Summary of Facts. I convicted D1 of Charge 1 and, upon the Prosecution’s application, I ordered Charge 2 be left on court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.

Summary of Facts

4.The incident happened at the rooftop of a residential building known as No 151 Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon (the “Rooftop”). At the material times, Mr Chen Yujun (“PWI”)  was a tenant who resided in Room B, 6^th Floor, 151 Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po (the “Premises”)  with his wife and son. PW1 rented the Premises from the landlord, Mr Hong Kim Ming (“PW2”), who had installed a 'split type air-conditioner' in the Premises. The cooling machine of the air-conditioner (the “Cooling Machine”)  was erected at the Rooftop.

5.On 18 March 2025 at around 0730 hours, PW1 left the Premises for work. At around 1130 hours, PW1 was informed by his wife that the Cooling Machine was dismantled by someone and it was left unattended at the Rooftop. PW1 informed PW2 about this.

6.On 18 March 2025 at around 1805 hours, PW1 finished work and returned home. At the junction of Wong Chuk Street and Ki Lung Street, PW1 saw D1-D2 pushing a trolley to carry away a cooling machine, which resembled the Cooling Machine. PW1 immediately returned to the Premises and went up to the Rooftop. PW2 had also arrived at the Rooftop. PW1-PW2 found that the Cooling Machine was stolen and immediately went down to the junction of Wong Chuk Street and Ki Lung Street. They located D1-D2 and PW1 used his mobile phone to capture the appearance of D1-D2 who were then pushing a trolley to carry away the Cooling Machine. The case was reported.

7.Upon police arrival, PW2 confirmed that the Cooling Machine in the possession of D1-D2 was the stolen property belonging to him. PW2 suffered loss of HK$10,000 in the incident as he had to install a new air-conditioner in the Premises. D1 was arrested by the police.

Criminal Convictions

8.D1 has 4 criminal convictions, none of which was related to dishonesty.

9.On 12 February 2026, D1 was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for an offence of “Dealing with Property Known or Believed to Represent Proceeds of Indictable Offence” (FLCC 391/2026). He was arrested for that offence on 9 March 2025 and was subsequently given police bail.

10.The Defence accepted that D1 committed the present offence whilst on bail.

Personal Background

11.D1 was born in Hong Kong and is currently 25 years old.

12.Prior to his remand, he resided with his family, including his parents, an elder brother, an elder sister and a 19-year-old younger brother.

13.D1 studied up to Form 2 and started taking up different jobs. Prior to his remand, he worked as a casual construction worker and contributed around HK$3,000 per month to his family expenses.

14.His younger brother suffers from epilepsy and heart disease. D1 was responsible for taking care of him and accompanying him to hospital for regular check-ups, as well as supervising his taking of medicines.

Mitigation

15.The Defence submitted that D1 committed the offence out of greed. It was also submitted that he is now remorseful and promises not to reoffend.

16.As pointed out by the Defence, the usual starting point for burglary of domestic premises is one of 36 months’ imprisonment (R v Chan Yui Man CACC36/1988).

17.The Defence referred to the case of HKSAR v Suen Chi Wai [2015] 5 HKLRD 33 and urged the court to consider a lower starting point as (1)  there was no evidence of forcible entry into the building; (2)  D1 was merely stealing from the common area of the building and (3)  the occupants of the Premises were not put in fear.

18.The Defence further submitted that the burglary was not premeditated as no tools or weapons were found on D1. In addition, the stolen property involved was a used cooling machine, which was not of particularly high value.

19.In relation to the 6 months’ imprisonment imposed in FLCC  391/2026, the Defence invited the court to consider the principle of totality when sentencing D1.

Sentencing considerations

20.The present case involved burglary of domestic premises and a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment is the norm.

21.I accept the Defence’s submission that the Cooling Machine was placed at the Rooftop, which was a common area of the building. Besides, the occupants of the Premises were not put in fear.

22.However, there was evidence in the case that the Cooling Machine was secured to the Rooftop by multiple screws. Besides, the electrical wires and ducts of the Cooling Machine had to be cut before it could be taken down.

23.In the premise, I find that D1 could not have committed the offence without the use of any tools. After all, there were some 6-7 hours between the dismantling of the Cooling Machine and the carrying away of it, the absence of any tools found on D1 was neither here nor there. All in all, I do not find the present offence an unpremeditated one.

24.Based on the circumstances of the case, I take the view that a starting point of 33 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

25.D1 committed the present offence whilst on bail, which constituted an aggravating factor. I adjust the starting point upward to 36 months’ imprisonment.

26.Taking into account D1’s timely plea, I grant him the usual 1/3 discount.

Totality

27.In relation to the sentence for FLCC 391/2026, I understand that D1 was discharged on 22 June 2026 after serving the 6 months’ imprisonment.

28.As the present case involved a subsequent offence of a wholly different nature, I take the view that the sentence should stand on its own and be served separately.

Sentence

29.D1 is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.