A A
B B
DCCC 194/2024
C [2024] HKDC 1948 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 194 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I SINGH JAGJIT I
------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 14 November 2024
L L
Present: Ms Fok Sha Sha Jennifer, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Ms Nisha Mohamed, instructed by Deannie Yew And
N N
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O Defendant O
Offences: [1] Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械)
P P
[2] Possession of offensive weapons with intent (管有攻擊性
Q Q
武器並有所意圖)
R R
---------------------------------------------
S S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T --------------------------------------------- T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Singh pleaded guilty before me to the following 2 charges.
C C
2. Charge 1 is Possession of arms without a licence, contrary to
D D
section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
E Particulars are that he, on 23 June 2023, at Flat B, 3rd Floor, Kam Kok E
Mansion, Nos 82-84 Kimberley Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong
F F
Kong, had in his possession arms, namely 3 stunning devices, without a
G licence. G
H H
3. Charge 2 is Possession of offensive weapons with intent,
I contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. I
Particulars are that he, on same date, at same place, in Hong Kong, had in
J J
his possession offensive weapons, namely one extendable baton, 3 swords
K and one pepper spray, with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose. K
L L
Facts admitted by Mr Singh
M M
4. On 23 June 2023, at about 10:26 am, the police intercepted
N N
Mr Singh after he just came out from Flat B, 3/F, Kam Kok Mansion, Tsim
O Sha Tsui (“the Flat”). Mr Singh opened the door of the Flat with his key O
to let the police in for a house search. There was no one else in the Flat at
P P
that time.
Q Q
R
5. The Flat had 4 bed rooms, namely Room A, Room B, Room R
C and Room D. The police found and seized the following items:-
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
From Room A
C (a) One extendable steel baton (24 cm long when retracted, C
65 cm when extended) in a drawer of the bedside
D D
cabinet;
E E
(b) One sword (87 cm long including the handle of 12 cm)
F F
with sheath inside the wardrobe;
G G
From Room B
H H
(c) One sword (65 cm long with no handle, and with 10 cm
I of its hilt wrapped in gauze) between the end of the bed I
and the wall;
J J
K From Room C K
(d) One sword (64 cm long including the handle of 10 cm)
L L
on top of the wardrobe;
M M
From Room D
N N
(e) 3 stunning devices (two 8.5 cm long (“EUT1” and
O “EUT2”) and one 17 cm long (“EUT3”)) under a pillow O
on the bed; and
P P
Q Q
(f) One pepper spray under a pillow on the bed.
R R
6. Upon arrest and caution, Mr Singh admitted that all the items
S S
belonged to him. In the subsequent cautioned VRIs, Mr Singh admitted
T
that he lived alone in the Flat which was owned by his parents. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. EUT1 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 19,652 Volts
C and was capable of generating 768 high voltage pulses continuously in 3 C
seconds.
D D
E 8. EUT2 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 18,797 Volts E
and was capable of generating 615 high voltage pulses continuously in 3
F F
seconds.
G G
9. EUT3 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 10,722 Volts
H H
and was capable of generating 525 high voltage pulses continuously in 3
I seconds. I
J J
10. Dr Poon Chung Yan, Carmen, PhD in Electronic Engineering,
K confirmed that if EUT1-3 were applied to sensitive areas, they can alter K
heart rhythms, cause severe pain, disrupt blood flow to the brain and/or
L L
stimulate motor neurons, resulting in stunning and disabling effects on the
M subject. EUT1-3 were portable devices which are designed or adapted to M
stun or disable a person by means of an electric shock applied either with
N N
or without direct contact with that person. The 3 stunning devices fell
O within the definition of arms under section 2 of the Firearms and O
Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238. Mr Singh did not hold a licence to
P P
possess such stunning devices.
Q Q
R
11. The pepper spray was equipped with an operating button R
associated with 2 nozzles. Orange stains were found on the nozzles, and
S S
were found to contain capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin. Capsaicin and
T
dihydrocapsaicin were able to elicit a burning sensation on the soft mucosal T
tissues.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 12. Mr Singh now admits that at the material time, he had in his C
possession offensive weapons, namely the extendable baton, the 3 swords
D D
and the pepper spray with intent to use them for unlawful purpose.
E E
Criminal record
F F
G 13. Mr Singh has 4 previous convictions, none similar. Although G
there exists a live suspended sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment, it was
H H
only passed on Mr Singh after his commission of the present offences.
I I
Antecedents
J J
K 14. Mr Singh, born in Hong Kong, is aged almost 46 (45 at the K
time of the offences); educated to college level in India. He had previously
L L
been a driver. He was unemployed at the time of arrest. Mr Singh’s parents
M and siblings are all living overseas. Mr Singh got married in 2001 and M
became divorced in 2003. He was living alone in the subject premises.
N N
O Mitigation O
P P
15. Ms Nisha Mohamed of counsel assigned by the Director of
Q Q
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Singh. The following is a summary
R
of the mitigation submissions. R
S S
16. Mr Singh pleaded guilty to the charges showing his remorse.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. Mr Singh had previously worked in his father’s business but
C in 2006 he left the company and only had short occasional employment C
since then. It was during this latter time that he had mixed with some
D D
friends and committed the offences of Robbery and drug-related offences.
E Most of the time he remained unemployed and relied on monthly allowance E
from his father of $20,000.
F F
G 18. In relation to the Charge 1 offence, the sentence is dependent G
on the facts of each case. There are no guidelines/tariffs for such cases. It
H H
is not disputed that an immediate custodial sentence will be imposed. The
I more serious cases suggest the likely starting point could be 30 months’ I
imprisonment.
J J
K 19. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Mohamed P Shafik, CACC K
224/2014, at paras 30-32, listed the sentencing considerations for offences
L L
of this nature: (a) the need for deterrence which required an immediate
M custodial sentence; (b) the starting point had to be considered in the light M
of the facts of each case, as there was no tariff for such cases; and (c) while
N N
the court would take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case,
O important considerations included (i) the power of the weapon in terms of O
the voltage that it is capable of discharging, (ii) whether there is evidence
P P
that the offender or some other person has used or may use the weapon for
Q Q
an unlawful purpose or to facilitate an unlawful activity. The Court went
R
on to say that even though there may not be present an intent established R
on the part of the offender to use the weapon in any such unlawful way,
S S
where there is a real risk in the circumstances that the weapon will fall into
T
the hands of someone who will use it for such purpose, that is also a factor T
which will result in a higher starting point of sentence.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 20. The Court of Appeal also took the opportunity to examine the C
facts of the two previous similar cases, namely HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan
D D
[2003] 1 HKLRD 204, and HKSAR v Fan Kwok Wai, CACC 264/2005,
E unreported, 10 October 2005, from which some general principles were E
derived.
F F
G 21. Ms Mohamed also referred to a District Court case HKSAR v G
Ng Kam Hung, DCCC 223 & 1074/2018, for comparison purpose.
H H
I 22. It was submitted that there is nothing to suggest that there was I
any risk of the stun guns falling into the hands of others as they were found
J J
under his pillow in his own bedroom.
K K
23. Regarding the Charge 2 offence, it was submitted that Mr
L L
Singh is a Sikh; that one of the features of the Sikh religion is the sword;
M that two of the subject swords (those in Rooms B and C) were symbolic M
swords of the Sikh faith and were not sharp; that only the remaining sword
N N
(that in Room A) was sharp.
O O
24. It was further submitted that such cases could be heard in the
P P
magistrates’ court. Ms Mohamed referred to two magistracy appeal cases
Q Q
HKSAR v Han Shuo Humphrey, HCMA 134/2020 (appeal against
R
sentence), and HKSAR v Sam Ka Lam, Sam, HCMA 282/2020 (appeal R
against conviction). In particular, in the first case, the Court of First
S S
Instance, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, provided at para 36 of the
T
Reasons for Judgment a non-exhaustive list of matters to be considered by T
a sentencing court when dealing with this type of offence:
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C (a) The nature and size of the weapon; C
D D
(b) The potential harm it is capable [of causing];
E E
(c) The circumstances and intent of possessing the
F F
weapon;
G G
(d) The quantity of the weapon; and
H H
I (e) How it was possessed, ie whether it was concealed or I
easy to be used.
J J
K 25. It was submitted that the weapons were all found in his Flat at K
various locations and not in public; that there is nothing to suggest that he
L L
was thinking of using the weapons in public; that the number of weapons
M was not substantial. M
N N
26. Ms Mohamed submitted that the court could adopt concurrent
O sentences as the offences were committed on the same day and at the same O
place, albeit in different rooms.
P P
Q 27. Ms Mohamed further submitted that Mr Singh’s family have Q
R
asked him to go to USA to help them with their motel business. R
S S
28. Ms Mohamed submitted a mitigation letter written by Mr
T
Singh himself for the court’s consideration. T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
29. Lastly, Ms Mohamed urged the court to adopt a lower starting
C point for both charges in the range of 20-24 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
30. Upon enquiry, Ms Mohamed informed the court that
E according to instructions, the stun guns were for the purpose of self- E
defence.
F F
G 31. Also upon enquiry, after taking further instructions, Ms G
Mohamed informed the court that there in fact were two marriages of Mr
H H
Singh and both ended in divorce; that the reason why Mr Singh has not
I earlier said anything about the second marriage was that it was an arranged I
marriage and he did not particularly want to focus on it.
J J
K Sentence K
L L
32. I have seen a photo album consisting of 50 photographs
M showing the subject premises and the exhibits, attached with a sketch of M
the subject premises with locations of the exhibits marked thereon. I have
N N
also examined the three sword exhibits in their respective boxes with one
O side in open view. O
P P
33. Prosecution informed me by letter dated today that Mr Singh
Q Q
committed the present offences whilst on bail for two other cases with
R
police references PH/22002228 and TST/23013024. Needless to say, this R
is an aggravating factor for both of the present offences.
S S
T
34. The maximum penalty for the Charge 1 offence is a prison T
term of 14 years and a fine of $100,000.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C 35. The maximum penalty for the Charge 2 offence is a prison C
term of 2 years and a fine of $5,000.
D D
E 36. On Charge 1, one is dealing here not with one stun gun, but E
three. The numbers speak louder than Mr Singh’s claim that they were for
F F
self-defence purpose. Moreover, the fact that the stun guns were kept
G together with the pepper spray which Mr Singh has openly admitted that G
he kept it with intent to use it for unlawful purpose calls for an irresistible
H H
inference that the three stun guns were there for future unlawful use.
I I
37. The voltage power of the three stun guns ranges from more
J J
than 10,000 volts to almost 20,000 volts. They belong to the medium range
K of voltage for weapons of this sort (see Fan Kwok Wai, supra). K
L L
38. I am of the view that for Charge 1, the appropriate starting
M point is 3 years’ imprisonment. M
N N
39. On Charge 2, the number of offensive weapons was not small.
O Mr Singh had them with intent to use them for unlawful purpose. The size O
of the swords was huge. Each of them has a pointed tip that could easily
P P
pierce into human skin even if two of the swords were said by the defence
Q Q
to have non-sharp blades. Needless to say, the steel baton and the pepper
R
spray are also capable of causing a lot of harm on the body. Most of the R
items under Charge 2 were not placed in open view.
S S
T
40. For Charge 2, I am of the view that 1 year 9 months’ T
imprisonment is the appropriate starting point.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 41. Because of the aggravating factor aforesaid, each of the C
starting points is enhanced to the extent of 3 months.
D D
E 42. Mr Singh pleaded guilty to the charges in good time. He is E
entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount. There are no other
F F
mitigating factors of weight that could earn him any further reductions in
G sentence. G
H H
43. Although the offences were committed on the same day and
I at roughly the same place, each adds to the gravity of the other in terms of I
quantity and potential harm the weapons could cause. I am prepared to
J J
order only partially concurrent sentences. In doing so, I will take into
K account the totality principle. K
L L
(Mr Singh, please stand)
M M
44. On Charge 1, the sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.
N N
O 45. On Charge 2, the sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
46. I order that 6 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run
Q Q
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence
R
of 32 months’ imprisonment. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
47. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare that I have not activated
C any part of the suspended sentence. C
D D
E E
F F
G ( Isaac Tam ) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 194/2024
C [2024] HKDC 1948 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 194 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I SINGH JAGJIT I
------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam in Court K
Date: 14 November 2024
L L
Present: Ms Fok Sha Sha Jennifer, Senior Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Ms Nisha Mohamed, instructed by Deannie Yew And
N N
Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O Defendant O
Offences: [1] Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械)
P P
[2] Possession of offensive weapons with intent (管有攻擊性
Q Q
武器並有所意圖)
R R
---------------------------------------------
S S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
T --------------------------------------------- T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Singh pleaded guilty before me to the following 2 charges.
C C
2. Charge 1 is Possession of arms without a licence, contrary to
D D
section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
E Particulars are that he, on 23 June 2023, at Flat B, 3rd Floor, Kam Kok E
Mansion, Nos 82-84 Kimberley Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong
F F
Kong, had in his possession arms, namely 3 stunning devices, without a
G licence. G
H H
3. Charge 2 is Possession of offensive weapons with intent,
I contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. I
Particulars are that he, on same date, at same place, in Hong Kong, had in
J J
his possession offensive weapons, namely one extendable baton, 3 swords
K and one pepper spray, with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose. K
L L
Facts admitted by Mr Singh
M M
4. On 23 June 2023, at about 10:26 am, the police intercepted
N N
Mr Singh after he just came out from Flat B, 3/F, Kam Kok Mansion, Tsim
O Sha Tsui (“the Flat”). Mr Singh opened the door of the Flat with his key O
to let the police in for a house search. There was no one else in the Flat at
P P
that time.
Q Q
R
5. The Flat had 4 bed rooms, namely Room A, Room B, Room R
C and Room D. The police found and seized the following items:-
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
From Room A
C (a) One extendable steel baton (24 cm long when retracted, C
65 cm when extended) in a drawer of the bedside
D D
cabinet;
E E
(b) One sword (87 cm long including the handle of 12 cm)
F F
with sheath inside the wardrobe;
G G
From Room B
H H
(c) One sword (65 cm long with no handle, and with 10 cm
I of its hilt wrapped in gauze) between the end of the bed I
and the wall;
J J
K From Room C K
(d) One sword (64 cm long including the handle of 10 cm)
L L
on top of the wardrobe;
M M
From Room D
N N
(e) 3 stunning devices (two 8.5 cm long (“EUT1” and
O “EUT2”) and one 17 cm long (“EUT3”)) under a pillow O
on the bed; and
P P
Q Q
(f) One pepper spray under a pillow on the bed.
R R
6. Upon arrest and caution, Mr Singh admitted that all the items
S S
belonged to him. In the subsequent cautioned VRIs, Mr Singh admitted
T
that he lived alone in the Flat which was owned by his parents. T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. EUT1 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 19,652 Volts
C and was capable of generating 768 high voltage pulses continuously in 3 C
seconds.
D D
E 8. EUT2 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 18,797 Volts E
and was capable of generating 615 high voltage pulses continuously in 3
F F
seconds.
G G
9. EUT3 had a peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of 10,722 Volts
H H
and was capable of generating 525 high voltage pulses continuously in 3
I seconds. I
J J
10. Dr Poon Chung Yan, Carmen, PhD in Electronic Engineering,
K confirmed that if EUT1-3 were applied to sensitive areas, they can alter K
heart rhythms, cause severe pain, disrupt blood flow to the brain and/or
L L
stimulate motor neurons, resulting in stunning and disabling effects on the
M subject. EUT1-3 were portable devices which are designed or adapted to M
stun or disable a person by means of an electric shock applied either with
N N
or without direct contact with that person. The 3 stunning devices fell
O within the definition of arms under section 2 of the Firearms and O
Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238. Mr Singh did not hold a licence to
P P
possess such stunning devices.
Q Q
R
11. The pepper spray was equipped with an operating button R
associated with 2 nozzles. Orange stains were found on the nozzles, and
S S
were found to contain capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin. Capsaicin and
T
dihydrocapsaicin were able to elicit a burning sensation on the soft mucosal T
tissues.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 12. Mr Singh now admits that at the material time, he had in his C
possession offensive weapons, namely the extendable baton, the 3 swords
D D
and the pepper spray with intent to use them for unlawful purpose.
E E
Criminal record
F F
G 13. Mr Singh has 4 previous convictions, none similar. Although G
there exists a live suspended sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment, it was
H H
only passed on Mr Singh after his commission of the present offences.
I I
Antecedents
J J
K 14. Mr Singh, born in Hong Kong, is aged almost 46 (45 at the K
time of the offences); educated to college level in India. He had previously
L L
been a driver. He was unemployed at the time of arrest. Mr Singh’s parents
M and siblings are all living overseas. Mr Singh got married in 2001 and M
became divorced in 2003. He was living alone in the subject premises.
N N
O Mitigation O
P P
15. Ms Nisha Mohamed of counsel assigned by the Director of
Q Q
Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Singh. The following is a summary
R
of the mitigation submissions. R
S S
16. Mr Singh pleaded guilty to the charges showing his remorse.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
17. Mr Singh had previously worked in his father’s business but
C in 2006 he left the company and only had short occasional employment C
since then. It was during this latter time that he had mixed with some
D D
friends and committed the offences of Robbery and drug-related offences.
E Most of the time he remained unemployed and relied on monthly allowance E
from his father of $20,000.
F F
G 18. In relation to the Charge 1 offence, the sentence is dependent G
on the facts of each case. There are no guidelines/tariffs for such cases. It
H H
is not disputed that an immediate custodial sentence will be imposed. The
I more serious cases suggest the likely starting point could be 30 months’ I
imprisonment.
J J
K 19. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Mohamed P Shafik, CACC K
224/2014, at paras 30-32, listed the sentencing considerations for offences
L L
of this nature: (a) the need for deterrence which required an immediate
M custodial sentence; (b) the starting point had to be considered in the light M
of the facts of each case, as there was no tariff for such cases; and (c) while
N N
the court would take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case,
O important considerations included (i) the power of the weapon in terms of O
the voltage that it is capable of discharging, (ii) whether there is evidence
P P
that the offender or some other person has used or may use the weapon for
Q Q
an unlawful purpose or to facilitate an unlawful activity. The Court went
R
on to say that even though there may not be present an intent established R
on the part of the offender to use the weapon in any such unlawful way,
S S
where there is a real risk in the circumstances that the weapon will fall into
T
the hands of someone who will use it for such purpose, that is also a factor T
which will result in a higher starting point of sentence.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 20. The Court of Appeal also took the opportunity to examine the C
facts of the two previous similar cases, namely HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan
D D
[2003] 1 HKLRD 204, and HKSAR v Fan Kwok Wai, CACC 264/2005,
E unreported, 10 October 2005, from which some general principles were E
derived.
F F
G 21. Ms Mohamed also referred to a District Court case HKSAR v G
Ng Kam Hung, DCCC 223 & 1074/2018, for comparison purpose.
H H
I 22. It was submitted that there is nothing to suggest that there was I
any risk of the stun guns falling into the hands of others as they were found
J J
under his pillow in his own bedroom.
K K
23. Regarding the Charge 2 offence, it was submitted that Mr
L L
Singh is a Sikh; that one of the features of the Sikh religion is the sword;
M that two of the subject swords (those in Rooms B and C) were symbolic M
swords of the Sikh faith and were not sharp; that only the remaining sword
N N
(that in Room A) was sharp.
O O
24. It was further submitted that such cases could be heard in the
P P
magistrates’ court. Ms Mohamed referred to two magistracy appeal cases
Q Q
HKSAR v Han Shuo Humphrey, HCMA 134/2020 (appeal against
R
sentence), and HKSAR v Sam Ka Lam, Sam, HCMA 282/2020 (appeal R
against conviction). In particular, in the first case, the Court of First
S S
Instance, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, provided at para 36 of the
T
Reasons for Judgment a non-exhaustive list of matters to be considered by T
a sentencing court when dealing with this type of offence:
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C (a) The nature and size of the weapon; C
D D
(b) The potential harm it is capable [of causing];
E E
(c) The circumstances and intent of possessing the
F F
weapon;
G G
(d) The quantity of the weapon; and
H H
I (e) How it was possessed, ie whether it was concealed or I
easy to be used.
J J
K 25. It was submitted that the weapons were all found in his Flat at K
various locations and not in public; that there is nothing to suggest that he
L L
was thinking of using the weapons in public; that the number of weapons
M was not substantial. M
N N
26. Ms Mohamed submitted that the court could adopt concurrent
O sentences as the offences were committed on the same day and at the same O
place, albeit in different rooms.
P P
Q 27. Ms Mohamed further submitted that Mr Singh’s family have Q
R
asked him to go to USA to help them with their motel business. R
S S
28. Ms Mohamed submitted a mitigation letter written by Mr
T
Singh himself for the court’s consideration. T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
29. Lastly, Ms Mohamed urged the court to adopt a lower starting
C point for both charges in the range of 20-24 months’ imprisonment. C
D D
30. Upon enquiry, Ms Mohamed informed the court that
E according to instructions, the stun guns were for the purpose of self- E
defence.
F F
G 31. Also upon enquiry, after taking further instructions, Ms G
Mohamed informed the court that there in fact were two marriages of Mr
H H
Singh and both ended in divorce; that the reason why Mr Singh has not
I earlier said anything about the second marriage was that it was an arranged I
marriage and he did not particularly want to focus on it.
J J
K Sentence K
L L
32. I have seen a photo album consisting of 50 photographs
M showing the subject premises and the exhibits, attached with a sketch of M
the subject premises with locations of the exhibits marked thereon. I have
N N
also examined the three sword exhibits in their respective boxes with one
O side in open view. O
P P
33. Prosecution informed me by letter dated today that Mr Singh
Q Q
committed the present offences whilst on bail for two other cases with
R
police references PH/22002228 and TST/23013024. Needless to say, this R
is an aggravating factor for both of the present offences.
S S
T
34. The maximum penalty for the Charge 1 offence is a prison T
term of 14 years and a fine of $100,000.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C 35. The maximum penalty for the Charge 2 offence is a prison C
term of 2 years and a fine of $5,000.
D D
E 36. On Charge 1, one is dealing here not with one stun gun, but E
three. The numbers speak louder than Mr Singh’s claim that they were for
F F
self-defence purpose. Moreover, the fact that the stun guns were kept
G together with the pepper spray which Mr Singh has openly admitted that G
he kept it with intent to use it for unlawful purpose calls for an irresistible
H H
inference that the three stun guns were there for future unlawful use.
I I
37. The voltage power of the three stun guns ranges from more
J J
than 10,000 volts to almost 20,000 volts. They belong to the medium range
K of voltage for weapons of this sort (see Fan Kwok Wai, supra). K
L L
38. I am of the view that for Charge 1, the appropriate starting
M point is 3 years’ imprisonment. M
N N
39. On Charge 2, the number of offensive weapons was not small.
O Mr Singh had them with intent to use them for unlawful purpose. The size O
of the swords was huge. Each of them has a pointed tip that could easily
P P
pierce into human skin even if two of the swords were said by the defence
Q Q
to have non-sharp blades. Needless to say, the steel baton and the pepper
R
spray are also capable of causing a lot of harm on the body. Most of the R
items under Charge 2 were not placed in open view.
S S
T
40. For Charge 2, I am of the view that 1 year 9 months’ T
imprisonment is the appropriate starting point.
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
C 41. Because of the aggravating factor aforesaid, each of the C
starting points is enhanced to the extent of 3 months.
D D
E 42. Mr Singh pleaded guilty to the charges in good time. He is E
entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount. There are no other
F F
mitigating factors of weight that could earn him any further reductions in
G sentence. G
H H
43. Although the offences were committed on the same day and
I at roughly the same place, each adds to the gravity of the other in terms of I
quantity and potential harm the weapons could cause. I am prepared to
J J
order only partially concurrent sentences. In doing so, I will take into
K account the totality principle. K
L L
(Mr Singh, please stand)
M M
44. On Charge 1, the sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.
N N
O 45. On Charge 2, the sentence is 16 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
46. I order that 6 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run
Q Q
consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making an aggregate sentence
R
of 32 months’ imprisonment. R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
47. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare that I have not activated
C any part of the suspended sentence. C
D D
E E
F F
G ( Isaac Tam ) G
District Judge
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V