|
DCCC 667/2025
[2025] HKDC 1667
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 667 OF 2025
----------------------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
SHAH MUSTAJAB HUSSAIN |
|
----------------------------------------
| Before: |
His Honour Judge E Yip |
| Present: |
Ms Yasmine Zahir, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Edward Laskey, instructed by Nasirs, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
--------------------------------------
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The offence arises from an incident on 4 December 2024, when the Defendant entered as a trespasser part of a fitness centre on the second floor of a building in Tsim Sha Tsui (“the Premises”), and stole cash and electronic items therein.
2. At around 10:20 pm on 3 December 2024, PW1, who was the owner of the fitness centre, locked the Premises and left. When he returned the following morning, he found the latch of the rear door damaged. The main entrance and the rear door were unconnected on the second floor. This means anyone trying to get to the rear door had to enter the Premises, or else go down to the ground floor and take the independent stairs up to the rear door. CCTV footage revealed that at about 12:47 am on 4 December 2024, a male intruder damaged the rear door, entered and ransacked the Premises. He left at around 7:05 am after having stolen cash in the amount of HK$11,000, 2 iPhones valued at HK$17,000, and a pair of AirPods valued at HK$2,000. The said cash and property were not recovered.
3. On 13 December 2024, the Defendant was stopped by police officers in the vicinity of Shanghai Street after being recognised from the CCTV images. Under caution, he admitted that he was the person in the footage and confessed to stealing the items from the Premises, stating that he had already spent the stolen cash and discarded the electronic devices. His fingerprints were later found on a metal locker inside the Premises, confirming his involvement.
4. The Defendant has 2 previous convictions for dangerous driving in 2017 and 2024 respectively, for each of which he was fined and disqualified from driving.
5. The Defence submits that the Defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, showing genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility. His plea has saved the court and prosecution valuable time and resources. The burglary, though serious, was not accompanied by any violence, threats, or the use of tools. It occurred in non-domestic premises when no persons were present, thus reducing the element of fear or danger. The Defendant acted alone and there is no evidence of planning or sophistication. The burglary appears to have been an impulsive, opportunistic act rather than a premeditated one.
6. The Defence further invites the Court to consider the Defendant’s personal background. He was born and raised in Hong Kong, completed Form 6, and attended a course in Information and Communication Technology in 2016–2017. His father died in a car accident in Pakistan in 2016, an event which caused him psychiatric distress, for which he received treatment at West Kowloon. His mother was also injured in an accident and suffers spinal injuries. At the time of the offence, the Defendant was working as a delivery worker earning a modest income of around HK$10,000 per month. His financial circumstances were strained, and he succumbed to poor judgment. Counsel submits that the Defendant’s actions were borne out of hardship rather than greed or professional intent.
7. There are 2 letters from the community centers indicating that the Defendant had rendered voluntary services in 2017. The description is sketchy. While I should not disregard this matter, the discount in the sentence cannot be much.
8. The burglary was of non-domestic premises. The conventional starting point is 30 months’ imprisonment, as established in HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000. The Court of Appeal has made clear that where the burglary is opportunistic, unplanned, and of relatively low value, a downward adjustment from that conventional starting point may be appropriate.
9. In the present case, however, the Defendant had tried to enter by the main entrance but failed to do so. He then damaged the latch of the rear door as he entered. The property had not been recovered. I do not regard him as an entirely opportunistic sneak thief. I therefore adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment.
10. The Defendant is entitled to a reduction of one-third for his early guilty plea, which brings the sentence down to 18 months’ imprisonment. I give 2 weeks’ discount for his voluntary services. The sentence is 17 months and 2 weeks.
|