Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of prohibited weapon

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴何卓鍵

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA224/2024

The trial judge's credibility findings were supported by multiple, coherent reasons and the appellate court on rehearing found those findings and the conclusion that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for possessing P8 in a busy public place to be correct; P8 was offensive per se; the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; the individual and global sentences were within appropriate ranges and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
4 Jan 2022

香港特別行政區訴蘇廣達

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3776
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA340/2020

The Court held that convictions for Counts 1 and 5 were unsafe because, on a full re‑examination of the evidence, alternative reasonable inferences (legitimate uses, resale intent, first‑aid purpose) existed such that the trial judge's inference that the items were possessed for use as offensive weapons was not the only irresistible inference; accordingly those convictions were quashed. By contrast, the Court accepted the prosecution expert evidence regarding P21 and concluded P21 met the statutory definition of a prohibited weapon under Cap 217 s4, so the conviction and 18‑month sentence for…
2 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. LO YUK FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LO YUK FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA672/2014

The application for a certificate was refused because the decision was fact‑sensitive, depended on detailed examination of the item's design, occurrences of similar cases appeared sparse, and the matter did not amount to a point of law of great and general importance warranting certification.
27 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. LAU NGAM CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU NGAM CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA692/2004

The Court upheld the Magistrate's sentencing exercise: starting points and plea reductions were appropriate, the totality principle was properly applied in making part of the immigration sentence consecutive, and the appellant's surrender claim did not alter the factual admission of possession; accordingly the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
20 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. LEE CHUN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE CHUN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1007/2003

Two months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive on the facts, but because the magistrate had repeatedly and expressly led the appellant to expect no imprisonment a legitimate expectation was created; that promise was breached and the custodial sentences were therefore unsafe and must be set aside and replaced with fines of HK$5,000 per offence.
18 Dec 2002

HKSAR v. LI HUNG KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI HUNG KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2002

In the absence of evidence that the applicant intended to use the stun gun for unlawful purposes and given the factual context, the original starting point was manifestly excessive; the appropriate starting point is 20 months' imprisonment, reduced by one third for the guilty plea to one year (12 months), and the appeal is allowed.
25 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. WU KIM WAN

Citation

HKSAR v. WU KIM WAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1141/2001

Conviction under s4 Cap.217 was properly upheld because the plea and admissions were voluntary and the item met the statutory definition of a prohibited weapon; however the custodial sentence imposed by the magistrate was excessive in the circumstances because insufficient weight was given to substantial mitigation (self-defence history, bona fide purchase, ignorance of the schedule and serious adverse family and livelihood consequences), and the two-month immediate custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine of HK$2,500.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 何卓鍵

香港特別行政區 訴 蘇廣達

HKSAR v. LO YUK FAI

HKSAR v. LAU NGAM CHUNG

HKSAR v. LEE CHUN KIT

HKSAR v. LI HUNG KWAN

HKSAR v. WU KIM WAN

香港特別行政區訴何卓鍵

香港特別行政區訴蘇廣達