Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of firearm without licence

Legal area

Court

28 May 2012

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YAN SHEN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YAN SHEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR10/2011

The Court held that the sentencing judge accorded insufficient weight to general deterrence and aggravating facts (bringing the weapon into Hong Kong and the risk of it falling into wrong hands), so a non-custodial sentence was outside the reasonable range; however, exercising discretion in light of post-sentence developments (delay, substantial community service already performed, job loss and ongoing therapy), the Court dismissed the Secretary's review and declined to increase the sentence.
9 Aug 2011

HKSAR v. WONG KWOK KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KWOK KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC23/2011

Where a defendant is found in possession of a working firearm with live ammunition, a 12-year starting point for sentence is appropriate; the sentencing judge properly applied recognized discounts (one-third for early guilty plea plus limited further mitigation) and there was no basis to disturb the resulting 7 years 9 months sentence.
27 May 2010

HKSAR v. HUANG NANHUA

Citation

HKSAR v. HUANG NANHUA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/2009

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed because the trial judge properly exercised his discretion concerning pre-trial publicity by giving strong jury directions; alleged deficiencies in counsel's conduct did not produce demonstrable prejudice; the applicant's brief absence during part of a hearing caused no prejudice; there was no requirement to specify the exact arrestable offence in the indictment in the circumstances; and the 16-year sentence was not manifestly excessive in view of the statutory framework, precedents and the grave facts of the offence.
5 Aug 1997

HKSAR v. VU QUANG THAT

Citation

HKSAR v. VU QUANG THAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC49/1997

The jury rejected the applicant's account and accepted the police evidence as to possession; there was no basis on the material before the Court to disturb the jury's factual finding, therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
29 May 1997

R v. HO KING WAI

Citation

R v. HO KING WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC89/1997

The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge applied correct sentencing principles: a 12‑year starting point, a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea, a further one‑year reduction for assistance, and a justified consecutive two‑year order, resulting in a lawful total of nine years; the trial judge properly denied a good character discount because of a prior conviction; the sentences were not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
8 May 1997

R. v. YEUNG HIU SHING

Citation

R. v. YEUNG HIU SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC339/1996

For simple possession of an unlicensed firearm the correct starting point after trial is 12 years and, applying the usual discount for a guilty plea, the sentence of 8 years imposed was appropriate; the application for leave to appeal the sentence is dismissed.
9 Jan 1997

R. v. CHAN CHUNG KAN

Citation

R. v. CHAN CHUNG KAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC455/1996

The Court held that a 12-year starting point for unlawful possession of a firearm was correct and that increasing the usual one-third guilty-plea discount to 50% because of the applicant's assistance was appropriate, so the resulting six-year sentence was not excessive and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
22 Dec 1995

R. v. LAI CHI FAI

Citation

R. v. LAI CHI FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC480/1995

Leave to appeal out of time was granted and, on the merits, the court held the appropriate starting point remained 4 years for unlawful possession of the stun gun in the circumstances; applying a one-third discount for an early guilty plea reduced the sentence to 2 years and 8 months, so the original 3-year sentence was reduced accordingly; R v Cheng Yu Cheung was distinguished as factually different.
5 Oct 1995

R. v. Ronald George MILHENCH

Citation

R. v. Ronald George MILHENCH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC356/1995

The Court refused to admit the further psychiatric report because its admission was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice under s.83(d) of the Criminal Procedural Ordinance and it could have been obtained for trial; the sentencing judge did not err in rejecting incredible mitigation and in exercising sentencing discretion—a starting point of 12 years reduced to 8 for plea and a final term of 4.5 years on the firearms charge was appropriate; there was no factual nexus between the firearm and passport offences to warrant concurrent sentences, so the application for leave t…
17 Aug 1994

AU YEUNG WAI-KWONG v. R.

Citation

AU YEUNG WAI-KWONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC238/1994

The Court refused leave to appeal and held that the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment after a plea of guilty was not manifestly excessive because the judge correctly applied the Court of Appeal's guidance in R. v. Ho Chun and appropriately discounted the starting point for the guilty plea.