A A
DCCC950/2009
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 950 OF 2009 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F He Honglu F
G ---------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge G. Lam
H Date: 26 January 2010 at 3.21 pm H
Present: Ms Eva Chan, PP, of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr Steve Chui, instructed by C K Mok & Co., for the I
Defendant
J Offence: (1) & (2) Dealing in arms without a licence J
(無牌經營槍械)
K --------------------- K
L
Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of “Dealing
N in arms without a licence”, contrary to section 14 of the N
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. The arms involved
O are a total of 2,451 stun guns. O
P P
2. At all material times, the defendant was the owner and
person-in-charge of Chun Lai Technology Limited (“Chun Lai”) in
Q Q
Hong Kong and another mainland company. Chun Lai was a client of
R FedEx, a worldwide air cargo company. R
S 3. Regarding Charge 1, on 11 July 2008, the defendant S
hired Fook Hing Express (“Fook Hing”), a Hong Kong-Mainland
T T
cross-border transportation company, to transport, inter alia,
28 boxes from Shenzhen to Hong Kong. The 28 boxes of stun guns
U U
arrived at Fook Hing’s Hong Kong office through proper channels
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 1 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
on the same day. On the following day (12 July 2008), the
defendant instructed Skyone Express Limited (“Skyone”) to
B B
collect the 28 boxes of goods from Fook Hing’s Hong Kong office
C and then store them in Skyone’s warehouse temporarily. C
D 4. Regarding Charge 2, on 12 July 2008, the defendant D
hired FedEx to transport the 28 boxes of stun guns from
E E
Hong Kong to Andorra. Not knowing the nature of the goods, a
FedEx employee went to collect the 28 boxes from Skyone’s
F F
warehouse and exported them to a designated address in Andorra
G by air. G
H 5. When the consignment reached Andorra, the batch of H
goods were rejected at the port of entry. As a result, FedEx
I I
returned the 28 boxes of stun guns to defendant in Hong Kong via
Spain.
J J
K
6. The goods landed in Hong Kong on 17 July 2008. During K
Customs clearance, C & E officers opened the 28 boxes at the
L FedEx Cargo Area in the airfreight terminal and found a total of L
2,493 stun guns inside. The defendant was arrested at the office
M of Chun Lai on the same day. In his video interviews, the M
defendant admitted, under caution, that he had arranged for the
N N
relevant transportation companies to import the 28 boxes of stun
guns into Hong Kong without a licence on 11 July 2008 and to
O O
export the same from Hong Kong to Andorra without a licence on
P 12 July. P
Q 7. After testing, 2,451 stun guns (out of the 2,493) were Q
found to be functioning properly. Experts confirmed that the
R R
output of the said stun guns ranges from 20.70 to 48.04
kilovolts; and that the functioning stun guns are able to stun
S S
or disable a human subject, causing the person to lose his/her
T ability to stand up and rendering him/her immobilised and T
incapacitated, and left dazed and weak for a period of time.
U U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 2 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
8. The defendant is a 43-year-old mainland resident. He
has a clear record and pleaded guilty to both charges. Based on
B B
the facts admitted by the defendant, it appears that he was
C running a legitimate transportation business. Unlike those C
typical “Possession of stun guns” cases, there is no evidence to
D suggest that the stun guns involved in this case were intended D
for any serious or organised crimes or terrorist acts. Their
E E
output is of a relatively low voltage, which, unlike those
high-voltage output stun guns usually intended for unlawful
F F
purposes, is not lethal to humans.
G G
9. In the course of mitigation, defence counsel submitted
H that the defendant believed that stun guns of this type are H
legal in Andorra. Regrettably, there is no evidence proving
I I
their legality in Andorra or otherwise. Although they are
illegal in Hong Kong and mainland China, according to the goods
J J
description “Against Wolf”, the said stun guns are intended for
K
self-defence use by women. Moreover, the goods owner had told K
the defendant that they were ｢防狼器｣ instead of stun guns.
L L
10. I accept that the defendant is neither a hardcore
M M
criminal nor is he a member of a crime syndicate. He committed
the present offences probably due to his ignorance of the laws
N N
in Hong Kong. As the owner and person-in-charge of a
O transportation company, he has the duty to ascertain the O
legality of his clients’ goods before shipping them anywhere.
P This is what the defendant did wrong in this case; he failed his P
duty of due diligence. On this basis, I am prepared to
Q Q
distinguish this case from the typical “Possession of stun guns”
cases.
R R
S 11. I consider that the defendant’s wrongdoing amounted to S
a technical breach of the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the
T defendant has all along been co-operative with the Police and T
has demonstrated his willingness to shoulder his
U responsibilities. As a mainland resident, he voluntarily came to U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 3 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
Hong Kong to answer police bail at regular intervals since his
arrest in July 2008 and until August 2009 when he was charged.
B B
The defendant has even brought the owner of the stun guns (a
C Mr Zhu) to Hong Kong to assist the police investigation. C
D 12. Mr Chui submitted that there are no sentencing D
authorities the facts of which are similar to the present case.
E E
Prosecuting counsel Miss Chan shared the same view. I note that
the defendant has been remanded in custody for almost 5 months
F F
since 27 August 2009. I believe the defendant has been
G sufficiently punished and has learned his lesson. In the G
circumstances, I consider it appropriate to impose a sentence
H which would allow the defendant to be released immediately. I H
adopt a starting point of 7½ months imprisonment for each
I I
charge. One-third discount is given for his guilty pleas. The
sentence is therefore 5 months imprisonment for each charge.
J J
Having considered the totality principle, I order that the
K
sentences for both Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. Thus, K
arriving at a total sentence of 5 months.
L L
M M
N N
(G. Lam)
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 4 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC950/2009
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C CRIMINAL CASE NO. 950 OF 2009 C
D
---------------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v.
F He Honglu F
G ---------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge G. Lam
H Date: 26 January 2010 at 3.21 pm H
Present: Ms Eva Chan, PP, of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr Steve Chui, instructed by C K Mok & Co., for the I
Defendant
J Offence: (1) & (2) Dealing in arms without a licence J
(無牌經營槍械)
K --------------------- K
L
Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of “Dealing
N in arms without a licence”, contrary to section 14 of the N
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. The arms involved
O are a total of 2,451 stun guns. O
P P
2. At all material times, the defendant was the owner and
person-in-charge of Chun Lai Technology Limited (“Chun Lai”) in
Q Q
Hong Kong and another mainland company. Chun Lai was a client of
R FedEx, a worldwide air cargo company. R
S 3. Regarding Charge 1, on 11 July 2008, the defendant S
hired Fook Hing Express (“Fook Hing”), a Hong Kong-Mainland
T T
cross-border transportation company, to transport, inter alia,
28 boxes from Shenzhen to Hong Kong. The 28 boxes of stun guns
U U
arrived at Fook Hing’s Hong Kong office through proper channels
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 1 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
on the same day. On the following day (12 July 2008), the
defendant instructed Skyone Express Limited (“Skyone”) to
B B
collect the 28 boxes of goods from Fook Hing’s Hong Kong office
C and then store them in Skyone’s warehouse temporarily. C
D 4. Regarding Charge 2, on 12 July 2008, the defendant D
hired FedEx to transport the 28 boxes of stun guns from
E E
Hong Kong to Andorra. Not knowing the nature of the goods, a
FedEx employee went to collect the 28 boxes from Skyone’s
F F
warehouse and exported them to a designated address in Andorra
G by air. G
H 5. When the consignment reached Andorra, the batch of H
goods were rejected at the port of entry. As a result, FedEx
I I
returned the 28 boxes of stun guns to defendant in Hong Kong via
Spain.
J J
K
6. The goods landed in Hong Kong on 17 July 2008. During K
Customs clearance, C & E officers opened the 28 boxes at the
L FedEx Cargo Area in the airfreight terminal and found a total of L
2,493 stun guns inside. The defendant was arrested at the office
M of Chun Lai on the same day. In his video interviews, the M
defendant admitted, under caution, that he had arranged for the
N N
relevant transportation companies to import the 28 boxes of stun
guns into Hong Kong without a licence on 11 July 2008 and to
O O
export the same from Hong Kong to Andorra without a licence on
P 12 July. P
Q 7. After testing, 2,451 stun guns (out of the 2,493) were Q
found to be functioning properly. Experts confirmed that the
R R
output of the said stun guns ranges from 20.70 to 48.04
kilovolts; and that the functioning stun guns are able to stun
S S
or disable a human subject, causing the person to lose his/her
T ability to stand up and rendering him/her immobilised and T
incapacitated, and left dazed and weak for a period of time.
U U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 2 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
8. The defendant is a 43-year-old mainland resident. He
has a clear record and pleaded guilty to both charges. Based on
B B
the facts admitted by the defendant, it appears that he was
C running a legitimate transportation business. Unlike those C
typical “Possession of stun guns” cases, there is no evidence to
D suggest that the stun guns involved in this case were intended D
for any serious or organised crimes or terrorist acts. Their
E E
output is of a relatively low voltage, which, unlike those
high-voltage output stun guns usually intended for unlawful
F F
purposes, is not lethal to humans.
G G
9. In the course of mitigation, defence counsel submitted
H that the defendant believed that stun guns of this type are H
legal in Andorra. Regrettably, there is no evidence proving
I I
their legality in Andorra or otherwise. Although they are
illegal in Hong Kong and mainland China, according to the goods
J J
description “Against Wolf”, the said stun guns are intended for
K
self-defence use by women. Moreover, the goods owner had told K
the defendant that they were ｢防狼器｣ instead of stun guns.
L L
10. I accept that the defendant is neither a hardcore
M M
criminal nor is he a member of a crime syndicate. He committed
the present offences probably due to his ignorance of the laws
N N
in Hong Kong. As the owner and person-in-charge of a
O transportation company, he has the duty to ascertain the O
legality of his clients’ goods before shipping them anywhere.
P This is what the defendant did wrong in this case; he failed his P
duty of due diligence. On this basis, I am prepared to
Q Q
distinguish this case from the typical “Possession of stun guns”
cases.
R R
S 11. I consider that the defendant’s wrongdoing amounted to S
a technical breach of the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the
T defendant has all along been co-operative with the Police and T
has demonstrated his willingness to shoulder his
U responsibilities. As a mainland resident, he voluntarily came to U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 3 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V
A A
Hong Kong to answer police bail at regular intervals since his
arrest in July 2008 and until August 2009 when he was charged.
B B
The defendant has even brought the owner of the stun guns (a
C Mr Zhu) to Hong Kong to assist the police investigation. C
D 12. Mr Chui submitted that there are no sentencing D
authorities the facts of which are similar to the present case.
E E
Prosecuting counsel Miss Chan shared the same view. I note that
the defendant has been remanded in custody for almost 5 months
F F
since 27 August 2009. I believe the defendant has been
G sufficiently punished and has learned his lesson. In the G
circumstances, I consider it appropriate to impose a sentence
H which would allow the defendant to be released immediately. I H
adopt a starting point of 7½ months imprisonment for each
I I
charge. One-third discount is given for his guilty pleas. The
sentence is therefore 5 months imprisonment for each charge.
J J
Having considered the totality principle, I order that the
K
sentences for both Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. Thus, K
arriving at a total sentence of 5 months.
L L
M M
N N
(G. Lam)
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT30/26.1.2010/ES 4 DCCC950/2009/Sentence
V V