HKSAR v. ALI MUMTAZ

DCCC 1610/2024

[2026] HKDC 684

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1610 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Plea

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of “burglary” of non-domestic premises, contrary to section 11(1)(b)  and (4)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Admitted facts

2.  The Symphonie (“the Building”)  is a commercial and residential building managed by a property management company named Hang Yick Properties Management Limited (“Hang Yick”).  1/F to 4/F of the Building was occupied by HK Design Centre, and was under renovation between 18 April 2024 to 15 October 2024.  Some construction materials were placed at 1/F of the Building.

3.  At about 5:17 am on 30 August 2024, a night security guard heard that the Burglar Alarm System (“BAS”)  was activated, and found that the iron door of the rear entrance on the G/F of the Building was opened.  The CCTV captured a male (later known as the defendant)  breaking the wooden door from the main entrance and went to 1/F. The facial features of the defendant was clearly captured, and that his tattoo on his right forearm was also captured.  The defendant stole two rolls of copper wire, and left via the rear entrance iron door.  The security guard then informed his supervisor Mr Wong (“PW1”), who informed Mr Ye of the construction company (“PW2”).  The case was not reported to the police.

4.  At about 5:46 am on 1 September 2024, the security guard again heard the BAS was activated and found the rear entrance iron door was damaged.  The case was reported to the police.

Arrest and Caution

5.  At 6:20 am on 3 September 2024, PC27872 (“PW3”)  in plainclothes together with TFSU SSPODIV were on anti-crime patrol.  PW3 noticed the defendant acting furtively outside 255 Tai Kok Tsui Road, Mong Kok.  He took the view that the defendant and his outfit resembled the male captured by the CCTV on the material night.  The defendant was then intercepted by PW3 and was subsequently arrested.  Under caution, the defendant remained silent.

Fingerprint Examination

6.  The defendant’s left palm print was on the fire door A, i.e. the external side of the iron door at the rear entrance on the G/F of the Building.

The defendant’s criminal records and mitigation

7.  The defendant is now 50 years old, single.  Since 2012 until 2022, he has 29 previous convictions, most of them are dishonest related offence, of which 4 convictions are burglary.  Last conviction in September 2022 was also burglary when he was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.   The defendant is a recidivist and has aggravating factor, HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 3 HKC 848. 

8.  In mitigation, Mr Laskey, counsel for the defendant stressed that the defendant entered early guilty plea and was remorseful for the offence.  The defendant committed the present offence out of financial difficulty.  The defendant was more of an opportunist and the court may consider lower starting point. 

Sentencing consideration and discussion

9.  The conventional starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors is 2½ years’ imprisonment (see Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 and HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000).

10.  In Sim Ka Wing case, it is also said that the conventional starting point can be increased in case of professional criminals who plan the burglaries with meticulous care and steal goods and cash of considerable value.  I do not agree that the defendant is more of an opportunist.  He is more than an opportunist in that the offence took place in early hours, one wooden door was broken open, and construction materials could be expensive.  The defendant is premeditated.  I would adopt the conventional starting point for non-domestic burglary, i.e. 30 months’ imprisonment.  Another aggravating factor in this case include the fact that the defendant is a repeated offender, the sentence is increased from 30 to 33 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  Having considered Mr Laskey’s submissions, which is short and concise, 1/3 discount be given for his guilty plea and that arrived at 22 months’ imprisonment for the offence.  The defendant has been remanded for 19 months, assuming there is remission for good behaviour, the defendant should be released soon.