HKSAR v. SALEH AHMED FAROUK HASSANIN MEKKY

DCCC 722/2023

[2025] HKDC 778

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 722 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant is charged with four counts of Criminal Damage[1] (Charges 1 to 4), one count of Attempted Burglary[2] (Charge 5), one count of Going Equipped for Stealing[3] (Charge 6), and one count of Resisting a Police Officer in the Due Execution of His Duty[4] (Charge 7). After trial, he was convicted of Charges 1 to 4 and 7 and acquitted of Charges 5 and 6.

Summary of Facts

2.  The full summary of facts concerning Charges 1 to 4 and 7 can be found in the Reasons for Verdict.  In gist, the court found that in the small hours of the dates of Charges 1 to 4, the defendant drove his private vehicle to four different temples or village office and used some objects to damage the god statues which belonged to the temples or the village office.  The costs of repairing the statues ranged from HK$800 to HK$4,000.

3.  Subsequently, when the Police officers arrested the defendant for Charges 5 and 6, the defendant returned to his private vehicle and refused to come out.  In the end, the officers had to pull him out of the vehicle with force.  The defendant then put up a fierce struggle and one of the officers was injured on his finger during the arrest.

Mitigation

4.  The defendant is 41 years old and is a person of clear record.  He was born and raised in Egypt and received education in Egypt up to university level.  He came to Hong Kong in 2015 to do business but the business closed down in 2023.  He is married with a 9-year-old son but the couple have separated since 2023.  The defendant started to work as a construction site worker after the business closed but he is currently unemployed.

5.  Defence submitted that at the material times the defendant was going through marriage difficulty and as a result he was having emotional problem.  Defence also informed the court that after the defendant was brought to the magistrates’ court he had been remanded in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for about 6 months.

6.  In mitigation, Defence asked the court to take into account of the fact that the defendant is a first offender and at the material times he was troubled by his mental condition and marriage difficulty.  Defence also submitted that the defendant is willing to make full compensation to the victims of Charges 1 to 4.  All in all, Defence urged the court to take a lenient view on the defendant and impose a lenient sentence. 

Sentencing Consideration

7.  As there was concern about the mental condition of the defendant, two psychiatric reports were called for.  In essence, the two psychiatrists confirmed that the defendant has a history of psychosis.  However, they are of the view that the mental condition of the defendant is currently stable and no active psychotic symptoms were elicited. They were of the same opinion that in-patient psychiatric treatment is not necessary for the defendant at this stage but outpatient follow up is recommended.  In other words, hospital order is not recommended. 

8.  Concerning the charge of criminal damage, there is no sentencing guidelines as each case turns on its own facts that could be very different.  In the present case, the defendant damaged the properties of four different organizations within a period of 3 months.  The motives were unknown and there was probably none.  Separately considered, Charges 1 to 4 are not particularly serious.  If the court is dealing with a single incident, non-custodial sentence might be an option for a defendant of clear record who pleaded guilty.  However, in the present case the defendant committed the offences repeatedly within a short period of time and no remorse has been shown throughout the proceedings, the court is of the view that immediate custodial sentence is called for in these circumstances.

9.  Considered all the circumstances of the case, the personal background of the defendant, mitigation put forward and in particular of the fact that it is the defendant’s first convictions, I take 4 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of Charges 1 to 4.  As the defendant is willing to make full compensation to the victims, I give him 1 month discount for each charge.  The defendant was convicted after trial so there is no further discount.  As a result, the defendant is sentencing to 3 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 1 to 4.

10.  Concerning Charge 7, the defendant put up a fierce struggle when the Police officers were arresting him and as a result an officer suffered minor injury.  Such behavior must be deterred and custodial sentence is necessary to protect Police officers for carrying out their duties.  Considered all the circumstances including the fact that the injury of the officer was indeed minor, I adopt 3 weeks’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 7.  Again, the defendant was convicted after trial so there is no sentencing discount.  For Charge 7, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment.

11.  Lastly, the court has to consider the totality principle.  Considered all the circumstances, I order that 1 month’s imprisonment of each of Charges 2 to 4 and 2 weeks’ imprisonment of Charge 7 to be served consecutively with other sentences.  The rest of the sentences are served concurrently.  As a result, the total sentence is 6 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

12.  Concerning compensation, I order the defendant to make compensation as follows:

(i)  to pay $800 to victim of Charge 1;

(ii)  to pay $1,500 to victim of Charge 2;

(iii)  to pay $3,500 to victim of Charge 3; and

(iv)  to pay $4,000 to victim of Charge 4.

All the above sums to be taken from the bail money of the defendant.