Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of arms without licence

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. WONG LIN HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG LIN HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC52/2011

The Court held the trial judge's directions adequately warned the jury about the accomplice's interest in obtaining a sentence reduction and instructed caution in assessing his evidence; it was not essential to quantify the possible extent of reduction in the circumstances. D1's 3rd VIR was admissible because D1's admissions in that interview were relevant acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy and its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice. The prosecution evidence including the accomplice's testimony and independent supporting material was sufficient to sustain convictions;…
24 Jun 2009

HKSAR v. ROBERT A. PASCUAL

Citation

HKSAR v. ROBERT A. PASCUAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA59/2009

Where the totality of evidence (product labelling describing oleoresin capsicum, the canister's operation discharging a liquid containing capsaicin, the appellant's admissions and expert evidence that capsaicin is a powerful irritant) permits the reasonable inference that the liquid was noxious within s.2(e), the canister and its contents constitute 'arms' and conviction is upheld; direct quantitative chemical analysis is not mandatory.
30 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. ZHEN FUTING

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHEN FUTING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC509/2003

The Court held that although individual five and a half year sentences for the stun gun offences were manifestly excessive and should be reduced to four years nine months each, the overall totality of imprisonment (five years seven months) was not manifestly excessive given the objective seriousness of a cross‑border plan to commit robbery with multiple prepared weapons; judges must state a sentencing starting point and may properly take into account contextual aggravating features.
14 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. LAW KA KIT & OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW KA KIT & OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC97/2001

Given the planned series of very serious armed robberies involving a real firearm, tying and blindfolding of victims and gang activity, the sentencing judge's starting points and adjustments for age produced overall terms that were within the permissible range; D2's extreme youth warranted some reduction (resulting total 10 years) but did not justify further reduction or other disposal; D3 and D4's sentences (12 years) were not manifestly excessive and the applications for leave to appeal against sentence were properly dismissed.
3 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. YUNG TING CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. YUNG TING CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC164/1999

The judge correctly accepted reliable police evidence showing the appellant had joint possession and knowledge of the stun gun (custody and control), making the conviction safe, and the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the weapon and the discount afforded to the co-accused for a guilty plea; leave to appeal was therefore refused.
20 Apr 1999

HKSAR v. HUNG CHUN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. HUNG CHUN KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC579/1998

Leave to appeal was dismissed: the short delay was not satisfactorily explained but even on merits the applicant's admission of lending the stun gun constituted possession; s.2(4) includes defective articles within the definition of firearm; the 2 year sentence was appropriate and not excessive, so there were no grounds to reduce it.
7 May 1996

R. v. SZETO CHI KEUNG

Citation

R. v. SZETO CHI KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC719/1995

Because there was no intention to use the weapons in a criminal enterprise and the criminality was less than in Ho Chun the proper starting point was seven years; applying a 50% discount for plea and mitigation produced a three year sentence, so the original five year sentence was reduced to three years.
28 Aug 1985

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAI SHU-PIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAI SHU-PIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/1985

The guideline sentence for simple unlawful possession of a gun on a plea of guilty is six years' imprisonment; where there is intent to use the gun for an unlawful purpose a sentence in excess of six years is appropriate; the original sentences were manifestly inadequate and are substituted with six and five years respectively.
2 Nov 1982

WONG KEUNG-CHOR v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG KEUNG-CHOR v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC446/1982

The appellate court held that although the offence was serious and warranted a severe sentence for deterrence and public protection, the original 12-year term for robbery was excessive given the appellant's youth and surrounding facts; the appropriate reduction was to 8 years on count one while maintaining concurrent 5-year terms on counts two and three.
13 Mar 1980

SIU KING HIM AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SIU KING HIM AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC222/1979

The judge's directions, taken as a whole, were legally adequate: the burden of proof remained on the Crown; evidence established that the gang went armed intending at least to intimidate and to use force if necessary; therefore convictions of D2, D4 and D6 for murder could stand; provocation and self‑defence were not available to D6 on the facts and no reasonable jury could have found otherwise.