A A
DCCC 1345/2010
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1345 OF 2010
----------------------------------------------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
Choy Chi-wai Playboy
F ----------------------------------------------------------- F
G G
Coram: Acting Chief District Judge S. T. Poon
H H
Date: 7th February 2011
I Present: Ms. Winsome Chan of the Department of Justice for I
HKSAR.
J J
Mr. Lee Chi Wai Norman of Messrs Peter K.H. Wong & Co.
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for Defendant. K
K
Offence: (1) Common Assault.
L 普通襲擊 L
(2) Dealing with a firearm with reckless disregard for the
M M
safety of others.
N 在罔顧他人安全的情況下處理火器 N
O O
------------------------------------------
P Reasons for Sentence P
Q ------------------------------------------- Q
R R
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 1 count of “Common Assault”,
S S
contrary to section 40 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.
T 212, and 1 count of “Dealing with a firearm with reckless disregard for T
U U
1
V V
A A
the safety of others”, contrary to section 22 of the Firearms and
B Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. B
C C
2. The Defendant was a security guard employed by Guardforce
D Limited. He was licensed to carry shotgun and on 3 October 2010, he D
carried with him a Remington 870 Magnum Shotgun when he was on
E E
duty guarding the collection of cash at the HMV shop in Causeway Bay,
F at around 8:50 pm. F
G G
3. The Defendant’s colleague one Mr. Chan Yick-lung, who was
H not on good terms with the Defendant, was also on duty. Unfortunately, H
the two quarrelled again and upon seeing Chan throwing some receipts
I I
onto the floor in front of him, the Defendant threw a barcode printer at the
J fore-head of Chan. There were then some pushes between the two and J
in the commotion, the Defendant held up the gun at waist level and
K K
pointed it at Chan. Chan challenged the Defendant by daring him to
L open fire. The Defendant cocked the gun and released the safety catch L
and upon seeing this, Chan pushed the barrel of the gun away and
M M
grabbed the Defendant from behind. During the struggle, the gun was
N discharged when it was pointing at the ceiling and the ceiling was N
damaged with a hole of about 3 cm as a result. They continued to
O O
struggle with each other until they were separated by police officers.
P P
4. Under caution, the Defendant denied that the shooting was
Q intentional. Q
R R
5. The Defendant is now 36 years old, he had been working in
S security companies since 1989. He worked for Guardforce Limited for S
7 years until the commission of the present offence. He has a clear
T T
U U
2
V V
A A
record. He has a son of 10 years old from his previous marriage who is
B now staying with his mother. According to the Defendant, he has also a B
daughter of 7 years old from the present marriage. He is the sole
C C
breadwinner of his family and he also contributes HK$4,000 per month to
D his previous wife and son. He is living together with his old aged D
mother who is of poor health.
E E
F 6. Undoubtedly, the Defendant had good performance in his work. F
Two of his previous employers paid high regard to his working
G G
performance and in a letter written in 2003, his employer described the
H Defendant as “a conscientious, hardworking, efficient and responsible H
person.” Sadly, it is nearly for sure that the Defendant will no longer be I
I
able to work in this field after the conviction.
J J
7. Mr. Lee, solicitor for the Defendant, submitted several letters
K K
written by Legislative Councillors in mitigation for the Defendant. In
L the letters, it was stated that the Defendant was a committee member of L
the Guardforce Staff Trade Union and he was active in his contribution
M M
towards the trade union by bringing together the colleagues of Guardforce
N Limited and fighting for lawful and reasonable benefits for them. They N
said the Defendant is now very remorseful.
O O
8. Mr. Lee also submitted a collection of 220 signatures of the
P P
Defendant’s colleagues pledging for leniency for the Defendant. He
Q submitted that the Defendant committed the offences out of character Q
because of momentary impulse.
R R
S S
T T
U U
3
V V
A A
9. In respect of the second charge, there are not many precedents
B that I can refer to in considering sentence. In R v Chan Sik-ping1 , a B
drunken off-duty police sergeant used his service revolver to force a taxi
C C
driver at gun point to lie upon the ground and fired 3 shots one of which
D hit the windscreen of a goods vehicle. Noting that the defendant was a D
man of considerable service in the Police Force and had received
E E
commendation, the Court of Appeal nevertheless viewed that in carrying
F his gun he must behave in a responsible manner and found that a sentence F
of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment was a proper sentence.
G G
H 10. Although the Defendant here was not a police officer, as he was H
licensed to carry the lethal weapon, he was entrusted by the public to
I I
carry it in discharge of his duty and he must assume the same degree of
J responsibility as a police officer when carrying a gun. At the heat of a J
quarrel, it would be extremely dangerous to release the safety catch and
K K
cock the gun pointing it at somebody. By so doing the Defendant had
L obviously disregarded the personal safety of others, particularly in a place L
where many passers-by would be around and it was only fortunate that
M M
there was no one being hurt in the present case.
N N
11. This offence attracts a maximum sentence of imprisonment for
O 7 years and for the present case, whilst I accept that the discharge of the O
shotgun might not be intentional, an immediate custodial sentence is
P P
nevertheless inevitable.
Q Q
12. The Defendant had lived his life thus far in a responsible
R R
manner. He was a responsible person in his work, in taking care of his
S
family members and fighting for the benefits of his colleagues. But S
T T
1
CACC No. 403 of 1984, unreported.
U U
4
V V
A A
regarding the responsibility imposed on him in entrusting with him a
B lethal weapon, he failed it. B
C C
13. Having said that, however, the facts disclosed in the present
D case is a lot less serious than that of Chan Sik-ping. There was no D
intentional shot in this case and the gun was discharged during a struggle.
E E
I also accept that the Defendant committed the offence out of momentary
F impulse and he had never thought of hurting anyone with the gun. I F
accept that the Defendant is genuinely remorseful and I am confident that
G G
he will continue living a decent life after serving his sentence.
H H
14. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 18 months’
I imprisonment for charge 2. In consideration of the good character of the I
Defendant and other mitigating factors, I further reduce the sentence to 12
J J
months’ imprisonment. Taking into account his guilty plea, the
K Defendant is sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment for charge 2. K
L L
15. For charge 1, the offence is relatively minor. I adopt a starting
M point of 21 days’ imprisonment and the sentence is reduced to 14 days for M
the plea of guilty. This 14 days’ imprisonment is to be served
N N
concurrently with the sentence for charge 2.
O O
P P
Q Q
S. T. Poon
R Acting Chief District Judge R
S S
T T
U U
5
V V