HKSAR v. WONG KWOK HING

DCCC858/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 858 OF 2012

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of possession of arms without a licence, contrary to section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. The arms in this case refers to a stun gun.

2.  The facts of this case are that the police whilst searching premises in Sheung Shui, found a stun gun which was made to look like a torch in a drawer in a bed.  The search was on 13 August 2005.  The present tenant at that time who was also under arrest, told the police that that stun gun did not belong to him.  He told the police that it should belong to a previous tenant, which is the defendant in this case.  The defendant had rented the premises just before that defendant.  He lived there between August 2004 and November 2004.  In November 2004, the defendant stopped paying rent and disappeared leaving all his belongings inside the premises.  The landlord at the time did not throw away all his belongings but left them there in case he returned. 

3.  Looking at the defendant’s criminal record, in January 2005 he was ordered to serve a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order, so possibly in November 2004 he was in custody and therefore his landlord could not locate him which would explain why the defendant left his belongings behind.

4.  Not long after this search, the defendant appeared in Sheung Shui Police Station and was arrested for possession of this weapon.  He made a full admission to the police under caution.  He explained that he had bought the stun gun in 2004 in Shenzhen for HK$150.  It is common knowledge that in Shenzhen it is very easy to buy these types of weapons, they are openly sold.  The defendant told the police that because of the location of the flat being near the border, he bought that stun gun for self-protection. He was worried about illegal immigrants being in the vicinity and worried for his safety and his mother’s safety who was living with him at the time.  The defendant is disabled, having lost his left foot in an industrial accident which would explain his intention to protect himself with such a weapon. 

5.  Prosecution accept that the stun gun was in possession for self-defence and not for illegal purposes.  Moreover, the stun gun was kept inside a home as opposed to be carried around by the defendant. In fact the defendant would probably never have retrieved this stun gun as he was no longer living in the premises.

6.  Defendant is not a man of clear record, he has many previous convictions but none similar. 

7.  I have heard mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf giving details of his background.  The defendant has given an explanation as to why after his arrest he jumped bail and went to live in China with his mother.  He has also explained why he returned to Hong Kong and surrendered in August this year. 

8.  Defence counsel has referred me to the authority of HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan [200] 1 HKLRD 204.  Defence counsel has very helpfully summarised the cases referred to in that authority.  This authority is often cited where this offence is concerned, possession of a stun gun, and I have referred myself to this authority.  I have also referred myself to the expert report submitted by prosecution.

9.  This stun gun shaped as a torch could be described as belonging to the lower end of dangerous stun guns.  It has a middle to lower range of voltage.  Having heard mitigation and having considered the defendant’s reasons for buying and possessing a stun gun as well as the circumstances in which it was found, effectively abandoned by the defendant, I will take a lower than usual starting point because I find the facts allow me to take a lower than usual starting point. 

10.  I will take a 18 month starting point and give the defendant a discount of one-third for his plea.  Defendant is therefore sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.