R. v. WONG CHUEN PONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 579

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of being in possession of arms without a licence and one count of being in possession of arms and ammunition without a licence. He was sentenced by Gall J to two years' imprisonment on the first count and six years on the second. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

2. The weapon the subject matter of the first count was a powerful stun gun with a charge of 60,000 volts and 60 amperes. According to the expert testimony referred to in the agreed summary of facts this weapon is capable of incapacitating anyone who is stunned by it.

3. The weapon the subject of the second count is a converted .22 calibre starting pistol. 98 rounds of ammunition were found in the possession of the applicant 96 of which were usable. It appears to have been accepted that this was a potentially lethal weapon.

4. Two police officers who were on patrol duty in the early hours of the 17 March 1996 observed the applicant sitting on a bench in the garden at Tsimshatsui East. Their suspicions were aroused. They approached him and searched his person. They found the stun gun on him. He told them that he had the stun gun for the purpose of self defence. He was taken back to the police station and inquiries were made as to whether he had the necessary charger device for the gun. He replied in the affirmative and said it was kept at his residence at Tuen Mun. He agreed to accompany a police officer to go to his flat to retrieve it. On the way there he informed the police officer that he also had a pistol which he used to shoot birds and vermin.

5. The charger and the pistol and ammunition were located at the applicant's flat.

6. Gall J accepted in mitigation that the applicant had a job as a chef in a restaurant near to where he was when the police saw him. He was satisfied that he had not at that time been engaged in criminal activity where use of the stun gun would have been relevant.

7. In his grounds of appeal - as before Gall J - emphasis is made of the applicant's claimed ignorance of the law and his innocent use of the firearms. He also refers to his difficult family circumstances and the hardship which arises out of his being in prison for a protracted period of time.

8. The judge cannot be faulted for taking a serious view of these offences. He gave a generous discount for the pleas and the applicant's co-operation.

9. We do not think that the sentences which were imposed were either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Accordingly the application is dismissed.