Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of arms and ammunition

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2023

HKSAR v. CHAN LAP MING CASTOR

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1125
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC32/2022

The Court allowed the appeal, holding the judge erred in enhancing the starting point to 12 years by treating possession of the frame kits and piecemeal importation as aggravating without evidence that the parts were sufficient or that there was intent or deliveries demonstrating a plan to assemble further functional firearms; the case was not at the top scale and an appropriate starting point did not exceed seven years; applying the appellant's timely plea (one-third discount) produced a sentence entitling immediate release.
18 Jan 2023

HKSAR v. CHAN LAP MING, CASTOR

Citation

[2023] HKCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC32/2022

Vice‑President Macrae held there are reasonably arguable grounds that the sentencing judge may have erred in treating uncharged items and piecemeal importation as aggravating, in rejecting the applicant's asserted long‑standing enthusiasm for guns, and in assessing accessibility; therefore leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the matters should be determined by the Court of Appeal.
5 Jun 2007

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAI CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC36/2007

The appellate court held that the starting points adopted by the sentencing judge were justified by the gravity of the offences and the applicant's significant active role; the two‑thirds discount for cooperation was appropriate and, due to the clear nexus between Count 13 and the other offences, the full discount should apply to that count resulting in reduction of Count 13 to six months and a revised total sentence of nine years six months.
7 Aug 2001

HKSAR v. WONG TO

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC508/2000

The judge erred by failing to apply the totality principle and by treating related drug quantities and offences in isolation; the Court of Appeal therefore aggregated the relevant drug quantities and offences, adjusted starting points accordingly, applied a one‑third discount for early plea, substituted specific sentences for certain counts, re‑ordered concurrency/consecutivity and reduced the total sentence for D1 to 20 years imprisonment.
9 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. LAU TAT KEUNG MILKY

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU TAT KEUNG MILKY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC4/1999

Identification evidence was sufficiently reliable (multiple close-range observations, parade identification and CCTV support) and the trial judge gave adequate Turnbull and CCTV directions; there was no material misdirection about lack of direct evidence of shooting and the jury could properly infer guilty intent; convictions and a total concurrent sentence of nine years were not unsafe or manifestly excessive.
25 Nov 1997

HKSAR v. CHAN TZE KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TZE KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC169/1997

The Court held that the trial judge applied correct sentencing principles and tariffs, properly considered mitigation and claims of entrapment (which were inconsistent with admissions), reasonably declined to order a psychiatric report, and lawfully fixed and structured the sentences; therefore no interference was warranted and leave to appeal was dismissed.
26 Aug 1997

R. v. SIM CHI KO

Citation

R. v. SIM CHI KO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC504/1996

The Deputy Judge lawfully selected a 10-year starting point for unlawful possession of a loaded pistol, lawfully applied a 3-year discount in light of the jury verdict and the possibility of entrapment, and the resulting 7-year sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle; therefore the application for leave to appeal out of time against sentence is dismissed.
12 Jun 1997

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIT WING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG KIT WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC512/1995

The Court held that the trial judge's summing-up and directions were adequate, the confessions and accomplice evidence supported the convictions, any minor procedural matters were immaterial and handled correctly, and the sentences were within the judge's lawful discretion and not manifestly excessive; accordingly the applications to appeal were refused.
8 Apr 1997

R. v. HO SZE CHING

Citation

R. v. HO SZE CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC588/1996

The Court held this was a very serious s.13 offence but not of the worst type; therefore the 14 year starting point was excessive and should be reduced to a 10 year starting point and, after proper discount for plea and mitigation including youth, the sentence was reduced from 9 to 6 years imprisonment.
21 Feb 1997

R. v. YIP KIN CHIT

Citation

R. v. YIP KIN CHIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC275/1996

Convictions upheld because the contested factual issues (credibility of police, location of gun, voluntariness of admission) were properly left to the jury and there was no basis to conclude the convictions were unsafe; on sentence, some reduction was warranted because the informer encouraged the offence to a degree amounting to entrapment short of official police instigation, but the applicant's active steps (travel to procure weapon, possession of loaded weapon) placed the entrapment at the lower end and justified only a modest reduction from eight to seven years concurrent.