Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of firearm

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2014

香港特別行政區訴彭祥喜

Citation

香港特別行政區訴彭祥喜
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA488/2013

The trial judge misapprehended critical evidence about the location and visibility of the gun and drew an unsupported inference that the appellant must have seen the boxed gun when placing petrol cans in the boot; given the lack of evidence excluding reasonable doubt as to the appellant's knowledge, the prosecution failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsafe and liable to be quashed.
26 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. NG WAH KAN

Citation

HKSAR v. NG WAH KAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC126/2013

Leave to appeal out of time was granted; the Court found the trial judge properly rejected the applicant's explanation but gave insufficient weight to the rudimentary home‑made nature of the pistol and set the appropriate starting point at 8 years' imprisonment; applying the one‑third guilty plea discount produced an effective sentence of 5 years and 4 months, which substituted the original sentence of 6 years and 8 months.
19 Jul 2011

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIK WAI, TERRY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIK WAI, TERRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC373/2009

The judge fairly and adequately directed the jury on mental state, expert evidence and the legal elements of possession; the s.65C admissions and video interviews were admissible and established the applicant's knowledge of and possession of the firearm; absence of forensic contact evidence was neutral; therefore the jury's verdict was safe and the appeal dismissed.
9 Jun 2011

HKSAR v. WONG CHUNG LING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHUNG LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC276/2009

The Court held that given the possession of three working pistols and 32 rounds of ammunition, the applicant's previous convictions, and the conditional nature of his surrender, a starting point of 10 years followed by a 40% mitigation discount to 6 years imprisonment was within the sentencing judge's discretion and not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.
2 Jul 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOI WING WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOI WING WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/1998

The trial judge erred by adopting an insufficient starting point (six years) and by failing to properly treat knowledge and intended use of a handgun as an aggravating circumstance; the correct starting point was 15 years, the guilty plea discount should be reduced because the respondent absconded (reducing the one‑third discount to four years), and effective assistance warranted a further two‑year reduction, resulting in a substituted sentence of nine years' imprisonment.
5 May 1995

R. v. CHENG KONG NGAN

Citation

R. v. CHENG KONG NGAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC4/1995

The sentencing judge erred by overlooking the applicant's volunteered disclosure of the pistol and ammunition, which was the strongest mitigation; when properly accounted for, the appropriate sentence is three years' imprisonment rather than seven.
7 Apr 1995

R. v. Cheng Shui

Citation

R. v. Cheng Shui
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC299/1994

Because the Crown was permitted to call extensive rebuttal evidence aimed solely at impeaching the appellant's credibility and the trial judge failed to give a clear direction on how the jury should treat lies, there was a real danger the jury equated lying with guilt; the convictions were therefore unsafe and were quashed with no retrial ordered.
1 Sept 1994

NG YUK MING and Others v. R.

Citation

NG YUK MING and Others v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC317/1993

The court held that D3's conviction was safe and refused leave to appeal; late disclosure and complaints about trial judge had no substance; the appellate court reduced the sentences of Ng and Chau to reflect relative culpability and, for Ng, significant cooperation and risk to his safety, setting specific substituted terms to achieve a proper totality.
31 Mar 1993

R. v. LUK She-bun

Citation

R. v. LUK She-bun
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/1992

The trial judge's directions were adequate in the circumstances; no Broadhurst or Sharp direction was required and there was no unfairness that rendered the conviction unsafe; leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
19 Jan 1993

R. v. NG CHUN KEUNG

Citation

R. v. NG CHUN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC262/1992

The court allowed the appeal in part: the nine year sentence for possession (Section 13) was excessive in light of the applicable pre-Ho Chun authorities and was reduced to eight years; the ten year sentence for using a firearm to resist arrest (Section 17(1)) was not manifestly excessive and was upheld; the sentences are to run consecutively with the second to commence after three years of the first, producing an overall sentence of 13 years; the judge's erroneous statement as to the statutory maximum did not require interference with the ten year sentence.