HKSAR v. FAWAD BABAR

DCCC 16/2026

[2026] HKDC 1783

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Fawad pleaded guilty before me to 3 charges of Burglary, all contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Particulars of Charge 1 are that he, on 5 June 2025, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Shop Nos G7A, G7B and G7D, Ground Floor, Amazing World, Site 1, Whampoa Garden, Hung Hom, Kowloon, stole therein cash of about $7,500 Hong Kong currency.

3.  Particulars of Charge 2 are that he, on 6 June 2025, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Shop E, Ground Floor, Nos 28-34 Johnston Road, Wan Chai, stole therein cash of $12,500 Hong Kong currency.

4.  Particulars of Charge 3 are that he, on 6 June 2025, in Hong Kong, having entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Shop No 2, Ground Floor, No 22 Johnston Road, Wan Chai, stole therein cash of $7,510 Hong Kong currency.

Facts admitted by Mr Fawad

Charge 1

5.  The subject premises under Charge 1 was a restaurant located on the Ground Floor of a place known as Amazing World in Whampoa Garden, Hung Hom (“Charge 1 Restaurant”).

6.  On 5 June 2025, at about 1:15 am, Charge 1 Restaurant was locked and the door handle secured with a chain.  At about 2 am, Mr Fawad forcibly pulled open the door to the main entrance and entered as a trespasser.  Upon entry, Mr Fawad ransacked the cash desk and stole cash of about $7,500 from the cash drawer.

Charge 2

7.  The subject premises under Charge 2 was a restaurant located on the Ground Floor of Nos 28-34 Johnston Road, Wan Chai (“Charge 2 Restaurant”).

8.  On 5 June 2025, at about 11:45 pm, the two entrances of Charge 2 Restaurant were locked with the main entrance also secured with a padlock.

9.  On 6 June 2025, at about 1:45 am, Mr Fawad entered Charge 2 Restaurant as a trespasser through the main entrance and stole cash of $12,500 from the cash drawer.  At about 2:27 am, he left.

Charge 3

10.  The subject restaurant under Charge 3 was a restaurant located on Ground Floor of No 22 Johnston Road, Wan Chai (“Charge 3 Restaurant”).  

11.  On 5 June 2025, at about 11:20 pm, the cash drawer was locked before Charge 3 Restaurant was locked.

12.  On 6 June 2025, at about 2:42 am, Mr Fawad attempted to pull open the door to the main entrance of Charge 3 Restaurant but was unsuccessful.  At about 2:44 am, Mr Fawad entered Charge 3 Restaurant as a trespasser through the side entrance.  He ransacked the cash desk and stole cash of $7,510 from the cash drawer before leaving.

Criminal record

13.  Mr Fawad has 8 previous convictions 3 of which (recorded in 2013-14)  were for theft.

Antecedents

14.  Mr Fawad is aged 30 (29 at the time of the offences); he left school at Form 1 or Form 2 level in Hong Kong.  At the time of arrest, he was unemployed although he had been a part-time construction labourer before.  Mr Fawad was last discharged from prison on 25 March 2025.

15.  Mr Fawad was born in Pakistan and moved to Hong Kong when he was 10-12 years old.  He is single and was living with his mother and younger sister in public housing in Kwai Fong.

Mitigation

16.  Mr John Marray, with him Mr Francis Marray, both of counsel, mitigated on behalf of Mr Fawad.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

17.  Mr Fawad’s mother and younger sister (now married)  are in court to give him support.

18.  Mr Fawad pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity showing genuine remorse.  The court is urged to give him the full 1/3 discount on his final sentence.

19.  In HKSAR v Sin Ka Wing, CACC 450/2022, the Court of Appeal set out the general sentencing guideline applicable to burglary, namely that a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment already reflects a certain degree of premeditation and planning.  If the defendant is an “opportunistic” thief, the court may adopt a lower starting point:

“The conventional starting-point of 2½ years’ imprisonment for the burglary of non-domestic premises relates to burglaries with no aggravating or mitigating features. Such burglaries will involve a measure of planning, and thus a degree of premeditation and planning is already built into the conventional starting-point. The conventional starting-point can be lowered in the case of the opportunistic burglar, akin perhaps to the sneak thief who walks into an open office to steal whatever he can find.”

20.  Regarding aggravating factors for this offence, a clearer picture of the aggravating factors a court would consider in determining the appropriate starting point for the offence of burglary was set out in HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai, CACC 338/2007, at para 15:

“The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as; (1)  the offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed involving the use of heavy instrument or equipment; (2)  the offence is committed by two or more people; (3)  the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4)  the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5)  the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of similar nature, and (6)  the offender commits multiple offences.”

21.  Mr J Marray intimated that a lower starting point might be warranted relying on the fact the three offences were all of similar facts and modus operandi:

(1)  All targets were on the G/F of commercial premises after the businesses were closed;

(2)  Mr Fawad used limited force to gain entry into the premises;

(3)  No tools were used in the commission of the offences;

(4)  Rather than significant ransacking of the premises, Mr Fawad’s search was minimal and mostly contained to typical areas such as cash drawers and cashier’s desks;

(5)  Only cash was taken, with an average of $9,200 taken in each offence;

(6)  The offences occurred within 2 days; and

(7)  There was minimal planning.

22.  Mr J Marray submitted that only minimal upward adjustment to the starting point is necessary because:

(1)  There is a clear lack of planning or sophistication in execution;

(2)  Mr Fawad acted alone;

(3)  Mr Fawad’s actions fell within the ‘sneak thief’ category and he was not a habitual and recidivist burglar;

(4)  Mr Fawad has previous convictions for theft (quite aged)  but not burglary; and

(5)  The three offences were committed within a span of two days only.

23.  Mr J Marray asked the court to treat Mr Fawad leniently and to impose largely concurrent sentences on him taking into account totality principle.

24.  Mr J Marray submitted on behalf of Mr Fawad three mitigation letters all written in English by respectively Mr Fawad himself, his mother (with medical referral letter attached)  and his three sisters.  The contents generally are that Mr Fawad apologizes to the owners of the restaurants for their losses; that he feels regretful; that he promises he will not re-offend; that Mr Fawad is a responsible person towards his family; that his mother has medical issues that require medical appointments.  Mr Fawad asked for leniency.

Sentence

25.  I will ignore the three previous convictions for theft because they were a long time ago.  However, it is noted that Mr Fawad committed the present offences less than 3 months after his last discharge from prison for a possession of dangerous drug offence.

26.  There is nothing to suggest that Mr Fawad was an opportunistic burglar. The entrances to the restaurants were locked and he forced his way in though without heavy equipment.

27.  The fact of chain or serial burglaries suggests some degree of planning or premeditation. 

28.  Following the authorities, I will adopt 2½ years’ imprisonment as a starting point for Charge 1.

29.  Because of the fact of repeated offences within a short time, I will adopt 2 years 9 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of Charges 2 and 3.

30.  Mr Fawad pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  Other than that, there are no mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

31.  The offences were completely separate and distinct involving different restaurants at different locations.  In principle, the associated sentences ought to run consecutively, subject only to totality.

32.  I will honour the principle of totality by making part of the sentences run concurrently.

(Mr Fawad, please stand)

33.  For Charge 1, the sentence is 20 months’ imprisonment.

34.  For Charge 2, the sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.

35.  For Charge 3, the sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.

36.  I order that 3 months of the sentence on Charge 1, and 3 months of the sentence on Charge 2, are to run consecutively between themselves, and to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 3, making an aggregate sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment for Mr Fawad.