HKSAR v. MEHMOOD QASIM

DCCC 669/2025

[2026] HKDC 1674

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 669 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Mehmood pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Aggravated burglary, contrary to section 12(1)  and (3)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Particulars are that he, on 21 February 2025, having entered as a trespasser a building known as the rooftop, No 179 Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, with intent to steal therein and at the time of the said entry had with him weapon of offence, namely one knife.

Facts admitted by Mr Mehmood

3.  PW1 was the owner of 8/F and the Rooftop of 179 Ki Lung Street.  PW1 and his family kept renovation tools and household appliances in the Rooftop.  They also did their laundry, hanged their clothes and took rest in the Rooftop.  As per fire safety regulations, PW1 could not lock the door to the Rooftop which was accessible from the staircase of the building.

4.  On 21 February 2025, at about 3:10 am, PW1 was at home.  He heard the sound of opening door from the Rooftop.  PW1 went to the Rooftop and found Mr Mehmood holding a torch there.

5.  PW1 asked, “Who is that?”  Mr Mehmood replied he was looking for someone.  There was a short exchange of words before Mr Mehmood took out a knife from under his right armpit with his left hand, holding the knife downwards at first.

6.  PW1 then put his right hand on Mr Mehmood’s upper left arm.  Mr Mehmood still claimed he was looking for someone.

7.  Eventually, Mr Mehmood decided to leave.  As he was walking to the door whilst holding the knife, PW1 had his hand on Mr Mehmood’s left upper arm until the latter left.  PW1 reported the matter to the police.

8.  The whole incident lasted about 1 minute.  The knife including the handle was about 30 cm long.

9.  PW1’s sister placed the CCTV footage of the Rooftop in the WhatsApp group of the registered owners of the building.  On 22 February 2025, a member of the group PW2 left a message stating that he saw Mr Mehmood in Sham Shui Po.  PW1 then contacted PW2 and went to the site where Mr Mehmood was seen. PW2 called the police.

10.  Later the same day, Mr Mehmood was intercepted by the police.  He was wearing the same outfit as shown in the CCTV footage.  Both PW1 and PW2 pointed Mr Mehmood out to the police.

11.  At the scene, Mr Mehmood was arrested for “Attempted burglary”.  A cautioned VRI was later conducted with Mr Mehmood with the assistance of interpreters during which he stated:

(a)  On 21 February 2025, at about 3:10 am, he was at Ki Lung Street looking for his friend but he could not recall the address of his friend;

(b)  His mobile phone ran out of battery so he could not reach his friend;

(c)  He went to the Rooftop as he would usually smoke with his friend at the Rooftop;

(d)  He would not provide the personal particulars or contact information of his friend;

(e)  He did use a flash light in the Rooftop at the time; and

(f)  He had been wearing the same outfit for the past 2 months.

12.  Mr Mehmood now admits the particulars of offence.

Criminal record

13.  Mr Mehmood has 7 previous convictions two of which (in 2024)  were for theft.

Antecedents

14.  Mr Mehmood is aged 29 (27 at the time of the offence), educated to secondary school level.  He has previously worked as a deliveryman.  Mr Mehmood is married and resided with his wife and three children in public housing in Kwai Chung.

Mitigation

15.  Mr Christopher Grounds of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Mehmood.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

16.  Mr Mehmood’s 3 children are studying in primary school (2 sons)  and in kindergarten (one daughter).

17.  All of Mr Mehmood’s previous convictions are at magistracy level.  None was for burglary.

18.  Prior to his arrest, Mr Mehmood was a casual delivery worker earning about $12,000 a month.

19.  Mr Grounds drew up a table in his written mitigation of the soundtrack of the CCTV footage and made the following submissions relying on both the CCTV video footage and the soundtrack:

(a)  Mr Mehmood made it clear from his first comments that he would leave which he repeated 4 times;

(b)  He rapidly made his exit and desisted from the burglary;

(c)  PW1 was immediately made aware that Mr Mehmood would leave;

(d)  PW1 accompanied/ushered Mr Mehmood out of the premises still with his right hand on Mr Mehmood’s upper left arm;

(e)  PW1 did not seem unduly perturbed by what happened and acted with fortitude and common sense to play his part in ending the incident and ensuring Mr Mehmood’s departure from the Rooftop;

(f)  Mr Mehmood kept his left arm basically by his side during the incident and did not raise the knife to PW1’s face or brandish it in an obviously threatening manner;

(g)  Mr Mehmood was by himself;

(h)  PW1 did not suffer any physical harm or injury or any loss of property or damage thereto; and

(i)  The entire burglary was over in about 1 minute from beginning to end.

20.  Although the knife measured about 30 cm, it included the handle; so the blade was about 20 cm or 8 inches.

21.  It was submitted that this was not the worst case of its kind and it was at the less serious end of the scale of Aggravated burglaries warranting a lower starting point of sentence.

22.  Mr Grounds cited five cases for comparison purposes, namely:

(a)  HKSAR v Chan Chi Ping, Cr App 184 of 1997;

(b)  HKSAR v Szeto Man Keung, CACC 621 of 1998;

(c)  HKSAR v Li Siu Yeung, CACC 232 of 2004;

(d)  HKSAR v Chan Chun Man, CACC 216 of 2017; and

(e)  HKSAR v Wang Xiaofei & Anor, DCCC 1274 of 2011.

23.  Relying on these cases, Mr Grounds submitted that the appropriate starting point of sentence in the present case should not be more than 3 ½ years’ imprisonment.  Mr Grounds placed emphasis on the fact of Mr Mehmood’s almost immediate withdrawal from the Rooftop.

24.  Mr Grounds submitted that Mr Mehmood indicated his guilty plea early and asked for the full 1/3 sentencing discount.

25.  Mr Grounds urged the court to pass a lenient and merciful sentence within the context of the cases cited.

26.  Mr Grounds submitted on behalf of Mr Mehmood two mitigation letters written in English respectively by Mr Mehmood himself and his wife (the second letter with a medical certificate attached).  The contents generally are that Mr Mehmood committed the offence because he was unemployed at the time and was going through some hard times; that he assured the court that he would not re-offend; that Mrs Mehmood is single-handedly taking care of the three children and is suffering from depression; that both she and the children need Mr Mehmood for emotional support.  Mrs Mehmood asked for a lenient sentence for her husband.

Sentence

27.  Although Mr Mehmood has two recent convictions for theft, this is his first burglary conviction.  I shall not treat him as a recidivist.

28.  I accept Mr Ground’s submission that this case belongs to the less serious category of the whole range of aggravated burglaries.

29.  In Mr Mehmood’s case, I will adopt a starting point of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment taking into account that the premises concerned was an extension of domestic premises with an unlocked door.

30.  Mr Mehmood 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.

(Mr Mehmood, please stand)

31.  The sentence is 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.