HKSAR v. Mohammad Saeed

DCCC 1566/2025

[2026] HKDC 958

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1566 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary.  The particulars of the offence show it occurred on 18 June 2025 in a premises known as Pao Fung Mansion in Sham Shui Po in Kowloon.  The charge shows that he stole 9 rolls of electric wires. 

2.The facts are as follows:  A company called Ming Kei Fire Protection Engineering was responsible for fire safety maintenance of Pao Fung Mansion at Sham Shui Po in Kowloon.  The Mansion itself is a residential building.  At around 17 June 2025, the company confirmed that 5 rolls of electric wires were placed at the rear staircase on the 13^th Floor and 4 rolls of electric wires were placed at the rear staircase on the 3^rd Floor of the building.  These wires belonged to the company and would be used for fire safety maintenance of the building.

3.On 18 June, a representative returned to the building and found that the total 9 rolls of electric wires were missing, the value of those electric wires being some $8,000.  The case was then reported.  Naturally, the CCTV footage of the building was looked at and that showed that the defendant had entered the building via an unlocked iron gate at around 1 o’clock in the morning of 18 June 2025, taken away the electric wires, put them in a trolley and pushed the trolley away from the building.

4.The CCTV was watched by a policeman who later on the same day saw the defendant and arrested him.  Defendant had told him and said in the presence of an Urdu interpreter, he had gone into that building to look for a friend.

5.The facts clearly prove the charge of burglary and I convicted the defendant accordingly. 

6.The defendant is 40 years old.  He was originally born in Pakistan and received a secondary education.  He was unemployed when he was arrested.  He has an extensive criminal record for what I describe as petty crime and some drug offences, a total of 20 previous court appearances, 39 charges, 21 of those relating to offences of theft or dishonesty, minor theft charges with short prison sentences.

7.This of course is a different category of offence.  The defendant has no previous convictions for committing burglary and naturally offences of burglary have a considerably longer sentence than offences of petty theft, so this defendant is a first offender in this particular kind of offending.

8.The defendant’s mitigation put forward is, firstly, his personal background, he is married apparently, his wife in her late thirties is a housewife.  He has children, a daughter and a son, they are twins, aged 16.   The defendant’s mother, wife and his children are residing in Pakistan.  The defendant migrated to Hong Kong in the year 2000 and was working as a casual worker with a salary of around about $7,000 a month.

9.The defendant entered the building, he says, via an unlocked iron gate, which is confirmed by the CCTV recording.  He took the 9 rolls of electric wires using the green trolley.  The defendant had committed the offence alone.  The offence is similar to a walk-in burglary. There is no evidence of planning or skilful execution or the use of any form of instrument or equipment.  The offence is at a residential building, however, not a substantial premises.  There is no evidence the defendant is a professional burglar or committed multiple offences. 

10.In mitigation, it is pointed out to me that the present case took place in the common areas of the residential building, i.e. the rear staircase of the building.  The defendant did not attempt or enter any of the residential units to steal, so that would reduce the risk of any of the occupants of the residential units being subject to the fact of having seen their home invaded by a burglar.

11.I am referred to various sentencing principles.  Clearly, it is common ground and clear law that for the burglary of a domestic premises the starting point for sentence for a person of clear record after trial is 3 years’ imprisonment.  However, in the case of HKSAR v Suen Chi Wai at 2016 1 HKC, the Court of Appeal looked at a situation where a burglary occurred in the common areas of a residential building such as this area such as the staircase or a lobby.  It said it was unlikely to cause as much harm or danger as confronting someone in the confines of their own home and in that situation the court had some discretion in which to lower the normal starting point for sentence.  So the starting point, lower than the customary one may or may it not must be justified and the facts of the case and its surrounding circumstances will determine whether and by how much the starting point should be reduced.

12.The relevant factors for sentencing here appear to be in respect of the burglary, the defendant entered the building via an unlocked gate.  There is no evidence of occupants of the building being put in fear, there is no damage to the building, no equipment or tools were used. This would, in my view, justify a downward adjustment of the customary sentence.

13.As far as the defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned, the only potential aggravating factor is his poor criminal record for offences of dishonesty.  However, one must also bear in mind the defendant has no previous convictions for a burglary.  I consider in the circumstances of this case and given the much higher sentencing guidelines for burglary cases, I do not believe that the defendant’s criminal record acts as an aggravating factor in this case.

14.My final determination is I will take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment for this burglary, reduce it to 20 months’ imprisonment for defendant’s plea of guilty.  The final sentence will be one of 20 months’ imprisonment.