DCCC453/2015 HKSAR v. KOW CHI MING ALSO KNOWN AS KOO CHI MING - LawHero
DCCC453/2015
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge E Lin20/8/2015
DCCC453/2015
A DCCC 453/2015 A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
CRIMINAL CASE NO 453 OF 2015
C C
----------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
Kow Chi-ming
also known as
F F
Koo Chi-ming
G ---------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge E Lin
H Date: 21 August 2015 at 12.02 pm H
Present: Mr Gary LEUNG, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I
HKSAR I
Mr Oliver DAVIES, instructed by Wong & Co, for the
defendant
J Offence: Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械) J
K K
---------------------
L Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. In these proceedings, the defendant Kow Chi-ming (aka
N Koo Chi-ming) is charged with, pleaded guilty to one count of N
“Possession of arms without a licence”, contrary to Section 13
O O
of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
P P
2. He is convicted on his own plea and admission of
Q
facts. Q
R Facts R
3. Some time after 2 pm on 2 February 2015, the defendant
S was intercepted by police officers in Shek Kip Mei. Upon search, S
a stun gun (24 cm long and 3 cm in diameter) was found in the
T T
shoulder bag he was carrying. It can also be used as a torch.
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 1 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 4. Under caution, the defendant admitted that it was A
indeed a stun gun. He had tried to switch it on before. It was
B given to him earlier by a friend for self-defence. B
C C
5. The Electronic System Support Section of the Hong Kong
Police Force testifies that the device is a stun gun and that it
D D
is capable of generating electric arc from the electrodes on the
E head. The peak-to-peak pulsating voltage generated is 175,042 E
volts. It is capable of generating 2,308 high voltage pulses
F continuously for 3 seconds. F
G G
6. A senior forensic pathologist from the Health
Department also confirms that a stun gun causes immediate
H H
localised effect, followed by incapacitating effect on the whole
I
body. In particular, a discharge of up to 0.5 seconds startles I
and repels the victim; for a discharge of 1 to 2 seconds the
J victim loses his ability to stand up; for 3 to 5 seconds the J
victim is immobilised, incapacitated, dazed and weak for at
K least 5 to 15 minutes. K
L L
7. In addition, the contact with the electrodes of a stun
gun can result in superficial burns and causes generalised loss
M M
of skeletal muscle function. The fall inevitably results in
N impact injuries. N
O 8. In other words, the device in question is a powerful O
and dangerous weapon capable of causing serious injuries to its
P P
victim.
Q Q
Discussions
R 9. Possession of arms without a licence is a very serious R
offence that can be seen from the maximum sentence of a fine of
S $100,000 and 14 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 2 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 10. My attention has been drawn to the judgment of Hon A
Poon J. in HKSAR v Mohamed P Shafik1, where, in paragraph 29 to
B 35, the Court of Appeal reviews the authorities and summarises B
the position thus:
C C
(1) As deterrence, an immediate custodial sentence is
D D
required;
E E
(2) There is no tariff for the offence. The starting
F point to be adopted has to be considered in the F
light of the facts of the case;
G G
(3) The followings are some of the relevant
H H
considerations: the voltage power of the stun gun
I
in question; evidence, if any, of the stun gun I
having been used or may have been used by the
J offender or some other people for unlawful purpose J
or to facilitate an unlawful activity;
K K
(4) In addition, if there is a real risk that the stun
L L
gun will fall into the hands of someone who would
use it for unlawful purpose, it is a factor which
M M
will result in a higher starting point.
N N
11. In the Mohamed P Shafik case, the defendant worked as
O a bouncer. He was in possession of a stun gun capable of O
discharging voltage of 145,325 volts, although there was no
P P
evidence that higher voltage would cause greater harm to the
human body. The Court of Appeal held that there was a real risk
Q Q
of his using the stun gun, but held that the circumstances
R warrant a starting point of 24 months. R
S S
T T
U 1
U
CACC 224/2014 (5 March 2015)
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 3 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A Cases of similar magnitude A
12. The following cases, also referred to in the Mohamed P
B Shafik judgment, are relevant in that they offer the perspective B
as to the proper starting point to be adopted.
C C
HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan2
D D
the stun gun in question could also be used as a
E torch, generated 35,000 volts when operated in the air E
and 12,000 volts if applied to human body.
F F
The Court of Appeal considered that the voltage power
G G
of the stun gun was in the middle/lower range. There
was no evidence to suggest that the defendant intended
H H
to use it for an illegal purpose and the starting
I
point should be 20 months’ imprisonment. I
J HKSAR v Fan Kwok Wai3 J
The defendant, a drug addict with triad background,
K was found to be in possession of a quantity of K
dangerous drugs, three stun guns and two extendable
L L
batons at his home. The stun guns were capable of
producing discharges of 20,403 volts, 10,000 volts and
M M
13,623 volts respectively. They were considered to be
N of medium range. N
O The trial judge took the view that there was a real O
risk of the stun guns and batons falling into the
P P
wrong hands and adopted a starting point of 4 months
for the stun gun charge.
Q Q
R The Court of Appeal noted that there being no evidence R
of any immediate intent to use the weapons, the
S appropriate starting point is 3 years. S
T T
2 [2003] 1 HKLRD, CACC 250/2002 (18 December 2002)
U 3
U
CACC 264/2005 (unreported) (10 October 2005)
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 4 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 13. In the present case, the stun gun was capable of A
discharging 175,042 volts. Its power is of medium range. The
B defendant was carrying the stun gun in his shoulder bag. He B
admitted that it was for self-defence. He had even tried to turn
C C
it on before. There was a real chance that he could use it to
incapacitate his enemies.
D D
E 14. Having considered the facts of this case and the cases E
referred to above, I find the proper starting point should be 21
F months. F
G G
Mitigation
15. The defendant could not lay any claim for leniency on
H H
account of his youth or absence of previous convictions. He is
I
46 years old and has been convicted of a total of 20 charges on I
16 occasions. I have been told that he worked as a photographer
J before his arrest, but had been unemployed since. J
K 16. There is really nothing in the mitigation submission K
by his counsel which justifies exceptional leniency.
L L
17. The only valid mitigation is his plea of guilty.
M M
N 18. I would therefore reduce the sentence order from 21 N
months to 14 months.
O O
P P
( E. Lin )
Deputy District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 5 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A DCCC 453/2015 A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
CRIMINAL CASE NO 453 OF 2015
C C
----------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
Kow Chi-ming
also known as
F F
Koo Chi-ming
G ---------------------- G
Before: Deputy District Judge E Lin
H Date: 21 August 2015 at 12.02 pm H
Present: Mr Gary LEUNG, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I
HKSAR I
Mr Oliver DAVIES, instructed by Wong & Co, for the
defendant
J Offence: Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械) J
K K
---------------------
L Reasons for Sentence L
---------------------
M M
1. In these proceedings, the defendant Kow Chi-ming (aka
N Koo Chi-ming) is charged with, pleaded guilty to one count of N
“Possession of arms without a licence”, contrary to Section 13
O O
of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
P P
2. He is convicted on his own plea and admission of
Q
facts. Q
R Facts R
3. Some time after 2 pm on 2 February 2015, the defendant
S was intercepted by police officers in Shek Kip Mei. Upon search, S
a stun gun (24 cm long and 3 cm in diameter) was found in the
T T
shoulder bag he was carrying. It can also be used as a torch.
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 1 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 4. Under caution, the defendant admitted that it was A
indeed a stun gun. He had tried to switch it on before. It was
B given to him earlier by a friend for self-defence. B
C C
5. The Electronic System Support Section of the Hong Kong
Police Force testifies that the device is a stun gun and that it
D D
is capable of generating electric arc from the electrodes on the
E head. The peak-to-peak pulsating voltage generated is 175,042 E
volts. It is capable of generating 2,308 high voltage pulses
F continuously for 3 seconds. F
G G
6. A senior forensic pathologist from the Health
Department also confirms that a stun gun causes immediate
H H
localised effect, followed by incapacitating effect on the whole
I
body. In particular, a discharge of up to 0.5 seconds startles I
and repels the victim; for a discharge of 1 to 2 seconds the
J victim loses his ability to stand up; for 3 to 5 seconds the J
victim is immobilised, incapacitated, dazed and weak for at
K least 5 to 15 minutes. K
L L
7. In addition, the contact with the electrodes of a stun
gun can result in superficial burns and causes generalised loss
M M
of skeletal muscle function. The fall inevitably results in
N impact injuries. N
O 8. In other words, the device in question is a powerful O
and dangerous weapon capable of causing serious injuries to its
P P
victim.
Q Q
Discussions
R 9. Possession of arms without a licence is a very serious R
offence that can be seen from the maximum sentence of a fine of
S $100,000 and 14 years’ imprisonment. S
T T
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 2 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 10. My attention has been drawn to the judgment of Hon A
Poon J. in HKSAR v Mohamed P Shafik1, where, in paragraph 29 to
B 35, the Court of Appeal reviews the authorities and summarises B
the position thus:
C C
(1) As deterrence, an immediate custodial sentence is
D D
required;
E E
(2) There is no tariff for the offence. The starting
F point to be adopted has to be considered in the F
light of the facts of the case;
G G
(3) The followings are some of the relevant
H H
considerations: the voltage power of the stun gun
I
in question; evidence, if any, of the stun gun I
having been used or may have been used by the
J offender or some other people for unlawful purpose J
or to facilitate an unlawful activity;
K K
(4) In addition, if there is a real risk that the stun
L L
gun will fall into the hands of someone who would
use it for unlawful purpose, it is a factor which
M M
will result in a higher starting point.
N N
11. In the Mohamed P Shafik case, the defendant worked as
O a bouncer. He was in possession of a stun gun capable of O
discharging voltage of 145,325 volts, although there was no
P P
evidence that higher voltage would cause greater harm to the
human body. The Court of Appeal held that there was a real risk
Q Q
of his using the stun gun, but held that the circumstances
R warrant a starting point of 24 months. R
S S
T T
U 1
U
CACC 224/2014 (5 March 2015)
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 3 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A Cases of similar magnitude A
12. The following cases, also referred to in the Mohamed P
B Shafik judgment, are relevant in that they offer the perspective B
as to the proper starting point to be adopted.
C C
HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan2
D D
the stun gun in question could also be used as a
E torch, generated 35,000 volts when operated in the air E
and 12,000 volts if applied to human body.
F F
The Court of Appeal considered that the voltage power
G G
of the stun gun was in the middle/lower range. There
was no evidence to suggest that the defendant intended
H H
to use it for an illegal purpose and the starting
I
point should be 20 months’ imprisonment. I
J HKSAR v Fan Kwok Wai3 J
The defendant, a drug addict with triad background,
K was found to be in possession of a quantity of K
dangerous drugs, three stun guns and two extendable
L L
batons at his home. The stun guns were capable of
producing discharges of 20,403 volts, 10,000 volts and
M M
13,623 volts respectively. They were considered to be
N of medium range. N
O The trial judge took the view that there was a real O
risk of the stun guns and batons falling into the
P P
wrong hands and adopted a starting point of 4 months
for the stun gun charge.
Q Q
R The Court of Appeal noted that there being no evidence R
of any immediate intent to use the weapons, the
S appropriate starting point is 3 years. S
T T
2 [2003] 1 HKLRD, CACC 250/2002 (18 December 2002)
U 3
U
CACC 264/2005 (unreported) (10 October 2005)
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 4 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V
A 13. In the present case, the stun gun was capable of A
discharging 175,042 volts. Its power is of medium range. The
B defendant was carrying the stun gun in his shoulder bag. He B
admitted that it was for self-defence. He had even tried to turn
C C
it on before. There was a real chance that he could use it to
incapacitate his enemies.
D D
E 14. Having considered the facts of this case and the cases E
referred to above, I find the proper starting point should be 21
F months. F
G G
Mitigation
15. The defendant could not lay any claim for leniency on
H H
account of his youth or absence of previous convictions. He is
I
46 years old and has been convicted of a total of 20 charges on I
16 occasions. I have been told that he worked as a photographer
J before his arrest, but had been unemployed since. J
K 16. There is really nothing in the mitigation submission K
by his counsel which justifies exceptional leniency.
L L
17. The only valid mitigation is his plea of guilty.
M M
N 18. I would therefore reduce the sentence order from 21 N
months to 14 months.
O O
P P
( E. Lin )
Deputy District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/21.8.2015/ML 5 DCCC 453/2015/Sentence
V V