HCCC321/2013 HKSAR v. HO MANG KEUNG, JOSEPH - LawHero
HCCC321/2013
高等法院（刑事）The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary17/10/2013
HCCC321/2013
A HCCC 321/2013 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 321 OF 2013
C C
-----------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
HO Mang-keung, Joseph
------------------
F F
Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary
G Date: 18 October 2013 at 9.37 am G
Present: Mr Harish Melwaney, SPP, of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
H Mr Kevin Egan, instructed by Messrs Robertsons, H
for the accused
I
Offence: (1) and (4) Possession of ammunition without a licence I
(無牌管有彈藥)
(2) Possession of unmarked plastic explosive (管有無添加
J 辨認劑的塑膠炸藥) J
(3) Possession of explosive substances (管有爆炸品)
K K
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
L of the Sentence in the above Case L
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: Ho Mang-keung, I have considered everything said on your
behalf.
N N
You have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to four
charges, and have been committed to the High Court for
O sentencing on those charges. O
P Charge 1 is of possession of ammunition without a licence, P
contrary to s.13(1) and (2) of the Firearms and Ammunition
Ordinance. The offence under this charge was committed on 26
Q September 2007 at Unit L on the Ground Floor of Q
International Industrial Centre, Nos 2-8 Kwei Tei Street, Fo
Tan in Shatin. The offences charged under Charges 2 and 3
R R
were also committed at those premises and on that date. The
offence charged under Charge 4 was committed at Unit K on
S the same floor of that building on 3 November of that year. S
Charge 2 is of possession of unmarked plastic explosive,
T contrary to s.58B(1) of the Crimes Ordinance. T
Charge 3 is of possession of explosive substances, contrary
U U
to s.55(1) of that Ordinance.
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 1 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A Charge 4 is, like Charge 1, of possession of ammunition A
without a licence.
B The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 1 is B
particularised as “approximately 38,441 rounds of ammunition
in various calibres”.
C C
The unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge
D 2 is particularised as “one block of composition 4 plastic D
explosive”.
E The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 is E
particularised as “3 binary explosive sticks, 37 detonators,
23 fuse igniters, 3 reels of detonating cord and 3 reels of
F F
safety fuse”.
G The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 4 is G
particularised as “approximately 232,235 rounds of
ammunition in various calibre and one tube from a M136 AT4
H anti-tank weapon”. H
I
There is an Amended Summary of Facts which you have I
admitted.
J The Amended Summary of Facts begins with background to this J
case, as to which this is said:
K K
“1. The Defendant, Ho Mang-keung Joseph (aged 57) was at all
material times, a director of Joe's Paradise Ltd. and
L operated his business from premises situated at Unit L, L
Ground Floor, International Industrial Centre, Kwei Tei
Street, Fo Tan, Shatin ('Unit L'). He was a licensed arms
M dealer and held 2 licences to possess arms and ammunition. M
One licence was issued to the Defendant in his capacity as
the Licensee and Responsible Officer of the Paradise
N N
Practical Shooting Club. The address of the Club was at
Unit L. The second licence was an individual license which
O permitted him to possess arms and ammunition at the O
armoury of Joe's Paradise Ltd. at Unit L. The Defendant
also held 4 Dangerous Goods Licences issued by the
P Commissioner of Mines, which allowed him to store a P
maximum of 80,000 rounds of ammunition at 4 mode B stores
at Unit L. He was the tenant of Unit L.
Q Q
2. In September 2007, the Police Licensing Office (PLO)
R was notified that the Defendant had been detained by R
officers of the Mainland Public Security Bureau on the
15.8.2007 at Huanggang, Shenzhen for a firearms related
S offence. It was then discovered from enquiries made by the S
Police with the Mines Division of the Civil Engineering
and Development Department that the Defendant had failed
T T
to renew his 4 Dangerous Goods Licences which expired on
4.9.2007.
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 2 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A 3. As the Defendant was deemed unable to exercise proper A
care and control over the arms and ammunition under
licenses issued to him, Officers of the PLO together with
B officers attached to the Miscellaneous Enquiries Sub-Unit B
of Shatin Division (MESU STDIV), Police Senior Force
Armourer and Officers from the Mines Division of the of
C C
the Civil Engineering and Development Department executed
a search warrant to take possession of the licensed
D firearms and ammunition from the armoury of Joe’s Paradise D
Limited at Unit L on the 23.9.2007.”
E Next, the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the discovery E
upon search of the ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive,
explosive substances and ammunition the subject-matter of
F F
Charges 1 to 4 respectively.
G Then comes paragraph 8 of the Amended Summary of Facts which G
reads:
H “8. In relation to the ammunition discovered at Unit L on H
the 26.9.2007 (Charge 1), 2,110 rounds were examined by
I Police Forensic Firearms Examiner from samples provided by I
DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the following:
J i. 1,750 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre; J
ii. 100 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
iii. 150 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
K K
iv. 40 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
v. 20 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre; and
L vi. 50 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre.” L
Paragraph 9 of the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the
M unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge 2. M
This paragraph concludes by stating that this explosive “is
considered a powerful military high explosive”.
N N
The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 are
O dealt with in paragraphs 10-21 of the Amended Summary of O
Facts. I will read out the last of those paragraphs, namely
paragraph 21, which reads:
P P
“21. PW18 further said that the box of explosives, if set
Q
off by any means, would have caused the following damage:- Q
(a) Blast effects that would likely have caused death out
R to approximately 5 metres radius; R
(b) Serious injury from approximately 5-10 metres;
(c) Lesser injuries such as ear damage from approximately
S 10-15 metres; and S
(d) Disorientation from approximately 15-20 metres.”
T T
Paragraphs 22-26 deal with the ammunition the subject-matter
of Charge 4. These paragraphs read as follows:
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 3 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A “22. The ammunition seized at Unit K consisted of the A
following:-
B (a) Approximately 232,235 rounds of ammunition in various B
calibre; and
(b) One tube from an M136 AT4 anti-tank weapon.
C C
23. In relation to 22(a) above, 27,000 rounds were
D examined by Police Forensic Firearms Examiners and found D
to consist of the following:
E (a) 10,500 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre; E
(b) 3,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
(c) 2,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.357 inch calibre;
F F
(d) 4,500 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre; and
(e) 7,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre.
G G
24. In addition 9,488 rounds were subsequently examined by
Police Forensic Firearms Examiners from samples provided
H by DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the H
following:
I I
i. 300 rounds of ammunition in 0.22 inch calibre;
ii. 110 rounds of ammunition in 0.30 inch calibre;
J iii. 80 rounds of ammunition in 0.303 inch calibre; J
iv. 60 rounds of ammunition in 0.308 inch calibre;
v. 151 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
K vi. 200 rounds of ammunition in 0.375 inch calibre; K
vii. 884 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre;
L viii. 400 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre; L
ix. 450 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
x. 2,050 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
M xi. 52 rounds of ammunition in 0.50 inch calibre; M
xii. 50 rounds of ammunition in 5.45 mm calibre;
xiii. 920 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
N xiv. 675 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre; N
xv. 225 rounds of ammunition in 8 mm calibre;
O xvi. 2,095 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre; O
xvii. 761 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre; and
xviii. 25 rounds of ammunition in 410 Gauge calibre.
P P
25. The tube from an M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon was
examined by Bomb Disposal Officer Alick Bryce McWhirter
Q Q
(PW19) who confirmed that it had been fired and is free
from explosives. The tube is green in colour, empty and
R there was no name or stock number visible. Instructions R
for firing were on a label stuck to the outside in
English. The length of the tube was approximately 1,000
S mm. The diameter of the tube was approximately 84 mm. The S
rear of the tube showed signs of heat suggesting that it
had been fired. The appearance is consistent with an M136
T T
AT4 light anti-tank weapon launcher which had been fired.
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 4 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A 26. The tube from the M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon A
satisfies the definition of ‘ammunition’ under the
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238.”
B B
The maximum penalty for each of the offences to which you
have pleaded guilty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
C C
It is not even suggested, let alone proved, that you were
D going to use or deliberately let anybody use any of the D
ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive or explosive
substances concerned to commit any crime. But there is a
E very good and very important reason why the law prohibits or E
regulates the possession of such things. They are highly
dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. Your counsel
F F
has spoken of the security arrangements in place. I take
that into account of course, as I do everything which he
G said. There is, however, no getting away from the fact that G
this is a serious case.
H Of the two ammunition charges, Charge 4 is more serious than H
Charge 1 since, first of all, far more ammunition is
I
involved and, secondly, the premises concerned in Charge 4 I
were, unlike the premises concerned in Charge 1, not
premises at which you had ever been licensed to possess any
J ammunition. On the information available from the Admitted J
Facts, It is difficult to draw any confident distinction
between the two explosive charges. I will treat them as
K equally serious and of the same seriousness as the more K
serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 4.
L L
For the less serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 1, I
adopt a starting point of 4 years. For each of the other
M three charges, I adopt a starting point of 6 years. On each M
charge I give you a one-third discount for your guilty plea.
So the sentence on Charge 1 is 2 years 8 months’
N imprisonment, while the sentence on each of the other N
charges is 4 years’ imprisonment.
O O
I have been asked by your counsel to take into account what
you have already undergone by way of a sentence of 4 and a
P half years’ imprisonment in the Mainland for an offence P
concerning Hong Kong connected firearms. As a matter of
mercy to you, I will take that into account.
Q Q
All things considered and taking into account totality, I
R propose to sentence you as follows. The sentences on the R
ammunition charges will be wholly concurrent with one
another. The sentences on the explosive charges will be
S wholly concurrent with one another, but consecutive to the S
extent of one year with the 4 years’ sentence on Charge 4.
You will therefore go to prison for a total of 5 years.
T T
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 5 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A HCCC 321/2013 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 321 OF 2013
C C
-----------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
HO Mang-keung, Joseph
------------------
F F
Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary
G Date: 18 October 2013 at 9.37 am G
Present: Mr Harish Melwaney, SPP, of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
H Mr Kevin Egan, instructed by Messrs Robertsons, H
for the accused
I
Offence: (1) and (4) Possession of ammunition without a licence I
(無牌管有彈藥)
(2) Possession of unmarked plastic explosive (管有無添加
J 辨認劑的塑膠炸藥) J
(3) Possession of explosive substances (管有爆炸品)
K K
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
L of the Sentence in the above Case L
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: Ho Mang-keung, I have considered everything said on your
behalf.
N N
You have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to four
charges, and have been committed to the High Court for
O sentencing on those charges. O
P Charge 1 is of possession of ammunition without a licence, P
contrary to s.13(1) and (2) of the Firearms and Ammunition
Ordinance. The offence under this charge was committed on 26
Q September 2007 at Unit L on the Ground Floor of Q
International Industrial Centre, Nos 2-8 Kwei Tei Street, Fo
Tan in Shatin. The offences charged under Charges 2 and 3
R R
were also committed at those premises and on that date. The
offence charged under Charge 4 was committed at Unit K on
S the same floor of that building on 3 November of that year. S
Charge 2 is of possession of unmarked plastic explosive,
T contrary to s.58B(1) of the Crimes Ordinance. T
Charge 3 is of possession of explosive substances, contrary
U U
to s.55(1) of that Ordinance.
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 1 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A Charge 4 is, like Charge 1, of possession of ammunition A
without a licence.
B The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 1 is B
particularised as “approximately 38,441 rounds of ammunition
in various calibres”.
C C
The unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge
D 2 is particularised as “one block of composition 4 plastic D
explosive”.
E The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 is E
particularised as “3 binary explosive sticks, 37 detonators,
23 fuse igniters, 3 reels of detonating cord and 3 reels of
F F
safety fuse”.
G The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 4 is G
particularised as “approximately 232,235 rounds of
ammunition in various calibre and one tube from a M136 AT4
H anti-tank weapon”. H
I
There is an Amended Summary of Facts which you have I
admitted.
J The Amended Summary of Facts begins with background to this J
case, as to which this is said:
K K
“1. The Defendant, Ho Mang-keung Joseph (aged 57) was at all
material times, a director of Joe's Paradise Ltd. and
L operated his business from premises situated at Unit L, L
Ground Floor, International Industrial Centre, Kwei Tei
Street, Fo Tan, Shatin ('Unit L'). He was a licensed arms
M dealer and held 2 licences to possess arms and ammunition. M
One licence was issued to the Defendant in his capacity as
the Licensee and Responsible Officer of the Paradise
N N
Practical Shooting Club. The address of the Club was at
Unit L. The second licence was an individual license which
O permitted him to possess arms and ammunition at the O
armoury of Joe's Paradise Ltd. at Unit L. The Defendant
also held 4 Dangerous Goods Licences issued by the
P Commissioner of Mines, which allowed him to store a P
maximum of 80,000 rounds of ammunition at 4 mode B stores
at Unit L. He was the tenant of Unit L.
Q Q
2. In September 2007, the Police Licensing Office (PLO)
R was notified that the Defendant had been detained by R
officers of the Mainland Public Security Bureau on the
15.8.2007 at Huanggang, Shenzhen for a firearms related
S offence. It was then discovered from enquiries made by the S
Police with the Mines Division of the Civil Engineering
and Development Department that the Defendant had failed
T T
to renew his 4 Dangerous Goods Licences which expired on
4.9.2007.
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 2 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A 3. As the Defendant was deemed unable to exercise proper A
care and control over the arms and ammunition under
licenses issued to him, Officers of the PLO together with
B officers attached to the Miscellaneous Enquiries Sub-Unit B
of Shatin Division (MESU STDIV), Police Senior Force
Armourer and Officers from the Mines Division of the of
C C
the Civil Engineering and Development Department executed
a search warrant to take possession of the licensed
D firearms and ammunition from the armoury of Joe’s Paradise D
Limited at Unit L on the 23.9.2007.”
E Next, the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the discovery E
upon search of the ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive,
explosive substances and ammunition the subject-matter of
F F
Charges 1 to 4 respectively.
G Then comes paragraph 8 of the Amended Summary of Facts which G
reads:
H “8. In relation to the ammunition discovered at Unit L on H
the 26.9.2007 (Charge 1), 2,110 rounds were examined by
I Police Forensic Firearms Examiner from samples provided by I
DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the following:
J i. 1,750 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre; J
ii. 100 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
iii. 150 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
K K
iv. 40 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
v. 20 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre; and
L vi. 50 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre.” L
Paragraph 9 of the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the
M unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge 2. M
This paragraph concludes by stating that this explosive “is
considered a powerful military high explosive”.
N N
The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 are
O dealt with in paragraphs 10-21 of the Amended Summary of O
Facts. I will read out the last of those paragraphs, namely
paragraph 21, which reads:
P P
“21. PW18 further said that the box of explosives, if set
Q
off by any means, would have caused the following damage:- Q
(a) Blast effects that would likely have caused death out
R to approximately 5 metres radius; R
(b) Serious injury from approximately 5-10 metres;
(c) Lesser injuries such as ear damage from approximately
S 10-15 metres; and S
(d) Disorientation from approximately 15-20 metres.”
T T
Paragraphs 22-26 deal with the ammunition the subject-matter
of Charge 4. These paragraphs read as follows:
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 3 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A “22. The ammunition seized at Unit K consisted of the A
following:-
B (a) Approximately 232,235 rounds of ammunition in various B
calibre; and
(b) One tube from an M136 AT4 anti-tank weapon.
C C
23. In relation to 22(a) above, 27,000 rounds were
D examined by Police Forensic Firearms Examiners and found D
to consist of the following:
E (a) 10,500 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre; E
(b) 3,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
(c) 2,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.357 inch calibre;
F F
(d) 4,500 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre; and
(e) 7,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre.
G G
24. In addition 9,488 rounds were subsequently examined by
Police Forensic Firearms Examiners from samples provided
H by DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the H
following:
I I
i. 300 rounds of ammunition in 0.22 inch calibre;
ii. 110 rounds of ammunition in 0.30 inch calibre;
J iii. 80 rounds of ammunition in 0.303 inch calibre; J
iv. 60 rounds of ammunition in 0.308 inch calibre;
v. 151 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
K vi. 200 rounds of ammunition in 0.375 inch calibre; K
vii. 884 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre;
L viii. 400 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre; L
ix. 450 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
x. 2,050 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
M xi. 52 rounds of ammunition in 0.50 inch calibre; M
xii. 50 rounds of ammunition in 5.45 mm calibre;
xiii. 920 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
N xiv. 675 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre; N
xv. 225 rounds of ammunition in 8 mm calibre;
O xvi. 2,095 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre; O
xvii. 761 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre; and
xviii. 25 rounds of ammunition in 410 Gauge calibre.
P P
25. The tube from an M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon was
examined by Bomb Disposal Officer Alick Bryce McWhirter
Q Q
(PW19) who confirmed that it had been fired and is free
from explosives. The tube is green in colour, empty and
R there was no name or stock number visible. Instructions R
for firing were on a label stuck to the outside in
English. The length of the tube was approximately 1,000
S mm. The diameter of the tube was approximately 84 mm. The S
rear of the tube showed signs of heat suggesting that it
had been fired. The appearance is consistent with an M136
T T
AT4 light anti-tank weapon launcher which had been fired.
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 4 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V
A 26. The tube from the M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon A
satisfies the definition of ‘ammunition’ under the
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238.”
B B
The maximum penalty for each of the offences to which you
have pleaded guilty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
C C
It is not even suggested, let alone proved, that you were
D going to use or deliberately let anybody use any of the D
ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive or explosive
substances concerned to commit any crime. But there is a
E very good and very important reason why the law prohibits or E
regulates the possession of such things. They are highly
dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. Your counsel
F F
has spoken of the security arrangements in place. I take
that into account of course, as I do everything which he
G said. There is, however, no getting away from the fact that G
this is a serious case.
H Of the two ammunition charges, Charge 4 is more serious than H
Charge 1 since, first of all, far more ammunition is
I
involved and, secondly, the premises concerned in Charge 4 I
were, unlike the premises concerned in Charge 1, not
premises at which you had ever been licensed to possess any
J ammunition. On the information available from the Admitted J
Facts, It is difficult to draw any confident distinction
between the two explosive charges. I will treat them as
K equally serious and of the same seriousness as the more K
serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 4.
L L
For the less serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 1, I
adopt a starting point of 4 years. For each of the other
M three charges, I adopt a starting point of 6 years. On each M
charge I give you a one-third discount for your guilty plea.
So the sentence on Charge 1 is 2 years 8 months’
N imprisonment, while the sentence on each of the other N
charges is 4 years’ imprisonment.
O O
I have been asked by your counsel to take into account what
you have already undergone by way of a sentence of 4 and a
P half years’ imprisonment in the Mainland for an offence P
concerning Hong Kong connected firearms. As a matter of
mercy to you, I will take that into account.
Q Q
All things considered and taking into account totality, I
R propose to sentence you as follows. The sentences on the R
ammunition charges will be wholly concurrent with one
another. The sentences on the explosive charges will be
S wholly concurrent with one another, but consecutive to the S
extent of one year with the 4 years’ sentence on Charge 4.
You will therefore go to prison for a total of 5 years.
T T
U U
CRT12/18.10.2013/KW 5 HCCC 321/2013/Sentence
V V