A A
B B
DCCC 668/2016
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 668 OF 2016 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
GURUNG BIKASH
I ---------------------------- I
J J
Before: HH Judge A Kwok
K Date: 8 March 2017 K
Present: Mr J P Chandler, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Alan Lo, instructed by Robertsons, for the defendant
M Offence: Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械) M
N N
--------------------------------------
O O
REASONS FOR VERDICT
P
-------------------------------------- P
Q Q
The Charge
R R
1. Defendant (male) (Nepalese) appeared before me and pleaded
S S
not guilty to a single charge of possession of arms without a licence,
T contrary to section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap T
238.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 2. The subject matter of the firearm in question is one stunning C
device.
D D
E Prosecution case E
F F
3. The fact of the prosecution case is simple and straightforward
G enough. It is basically a stop-and-search case. At 02:57 on 26 December G
2015, Sergeant 46753 (PW1) who was on plain-cloth duty was at the
H H
entrance of Bungalow, a nightclub situated at Ground Floor, No 60
I Wyndham Street, Central when he suddenly heard some cracking noise I
like a leakage of electricity. PW1 immediately turned around and at that
J J
juncture saw defendant who was only 3 feet away from him hid a black
K torch-like object in the inner pocket of his suit jacket. Feeling suspicious K
that the cracking noise was produced by a stun gun based on his past
L L
experience, PW1 notified his teammates from the Task Force Subunit of
M the Central Police Station to render assistance. M
N N
4. At 02:59, two police officers including PC 50551 (PW2)
O arrived. PW1 then pointed out defendant who was suspected of being in O
possession of a stun gun. PW2 then walked up to the defendant and
P P
revealed his police identity and conducted a body search.
Q Q
5. A search of the defendant revealed from the left inner pocket
R R
of his jacket a black torch-like object about 17 cm long. The object was
S later examined and determined to be a stun gun (Exhibit P1) by officers S
from the Electronic System Support Section, Communication Branch of
T T
the Hong Kong Police Force.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 6. Upon initial enquiries by PW2, defendant replied in English C
that he bought the torch for HK$500 at Temple Street in Yau Ma Tei,
D D
Kowloon. PW2 then declared arrest on him for possession of arms without
E licence. Under caution, defendant allegedly said, “Just for self-defence.” E
F F
7. Apart from PW1 and PW2, the two police officers, in this trial
G the prosecution case is to a large extent covered by the Admitted Facts G
(Exhibit P8) which deals with the production of the two uncontested video-
H H
recorded interviews (Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4), the examination report of
I P1 (Exhibit P5) and the report by a Dr Lai of the forensic pathologist I
service of the Department of Health on the effect of a stun gun being used
J J
against a person (Exhibit P6) as well as the photographs of the stun gun
K (Exhibit P7). K
L L
8. Finally, before the close of the prosecution case, I have
M directed the prosecution to produce a video clip showing P1 in operation M
and revealing the relevant switches and buttons as mentioned in the
N N
examination report. The defence did not object and the relevant video clip
O was formatted in a CD-ROM produced by the exhibit officer in court as O
Exhibit P9.
P P
Q 9. In this trial, the defence did not dispute the identity of the Q
defendant nor was the physical possession of P1 by him at the time of the
R R
offence. Put shortly, the defence denied knowledge on the part of the
S defendant that P1 was a stunning device. All along, it was contended that S
he possessed P1 and used it as a torch for his work purpose only.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Admissibility of the oral statement
C C
10. The defence objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s
D D
alleged verbal statement, “Just for self-defence”, under caution by PW2
E after his arrest at the scene. As a result, a voir dire was held and the E
alternative procedure was adopted during which the defendant elected not
F F
to give evidence.
G G
11. After hearing the evidence on the special issue from the police
H H
officers and also the submissions made by prosecution and defence, in the
I end, I ruled that the oral statement allegedly made by the defendant was I
not made voluntarily and the statement was therefore excluded as evidence.
J J
K 12. I came to this conclusion as it is obvious that both PW2, the K
arresting officer and the defendant were not native English speakers but
L L
they communicated with each other in English. However, as demonstrated
M by PW2 during the cross-examination by the defence, the arresting officers M
did not have a good command of spoken English. PW2 administered the
N N
caution in English in such a way that the defendant may not fully
O understand what he was saying. In particular, PW2 had said, “You are not O
object to say anything” when he should mean to say, “You are not obliged
P P
to say anything.”
Q Q
13. Also as a matter of fact, the police attempted to conduct a
R R
video interview record with the defendant as early as in the afternoon on
S 28 December 2015 on the day of his arrest. However, the defendant did S
not understand what the interview officers was trying to say to him in
T T
English. As a result, the video-recorded interview had to be terminated
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
and the police has to arrange a Nepali interpreter and that is why the other
C two video-recorded interviews (Exhibit P3 and P4) were only conducted C
one month later.
D D
E Defence case E
F F
14. Following my ruling on the voir dire, at the close of the
G prosecution case, I ruled that there is a case to answer. The defendant G
elected to give evidence but called no other witness.
H H
I 15. Defendant gave his evidence in Nepali with the assistance of I
a Nepali interpreter arranged by the court. He was born in Nepal and came
J J
to Hong Kong in 1997. He is now a permanent resident. He is a married
K man and resided with his wife and two young daughters who is 5 years old K
and 6 months old respectively.
L L
M 16. Defendant said he only attended primary 3 in a government M
school in Nepal. He worked as a security officer of a private company in
N N
Hong Kong earning HK$25,000 per month and he produced an
O employment contract (Exhibit D2). He was assigned to work at different O
bars or nightclubs in Central. He would stand at the entrance of the
P P
workplace and was responsible mainly for crowd control.
Q Q
17. At the time of his arrest, he was working at the Bungalow
R R
Club and was in charge of the security matter. According to the defendant,
S each security officer would carry a torch during work as it was dark inside S
the club. The employer company, however, did not provide a torch to its
T T
employee or security officers and he had to acquire it by himself.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 18. The defendant revealed that shortly before he was approached C
by PW2, the club was at that time very busy and there were lots of
D D
customers inside. Later he came to know that a group of his friends from
E Singapore came to see him and so he just went outside to the entrance to E
meet them up. Once outside, he tried to put the torch inside his left inner
F F
jacket pocket but the torch suddenly fell onto the ground. He picked it up
G and put it inside the jacket. He did not notice anything special in particular G
and he did not hear any cracking sound as told by PW1 as it was very noisy.
H H
I 19. After a short while, PW2 came up to him and after a brief I
investigation arrested him. Defendant explained that he bought P1 from a
J J
stall in the night market at Temple Street in mid-December. He needed to
K buy a new torch as his old torch was not working properly. P1 had cost K
him $500. The old torch cost him $300 only but the person who sold P1
L L
to him had said that P1 did not require batteries and could be re-charged.
M M
20. Defendant said usually it costs him about $20 to $30 per day
N N
just to buy batteries for his old torch. However, by 27 December, he said
O that he still had not charged P1 at all as there was still sufficient light O
produced by the torch.
P P
Q 21. Defendant denied knowing the existence of the other buttons Q
or switches on P1. All along he just used the on and off button on the barrel
R R
of the torch to operate the torch.
S S
22. Defendant maintained that it was only after his arrest that he
T T
came to know that P1 was a stunning device. He stressed to the court that
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
he was a family man with two very young children and he only bought P1
C as a torch and a torch only and bought it for his work purpose. He would C
not have bought it and kept P1 if he knew it was a stunning device.
D D
E Issues E
F F
23. The burden is on the prosecution to satisfy the court that in
G this case the defendant was at the material time in possession of P1, a G
stunning device, and he possessed P1 with the knowledge of its stunning
H H
nature, namely causing temporary incapacitation of a person.
I I
24. The defence took no issue with the fact that the defendant
J J
have had P1 in his physical possession at the time of his arrest. The defence
K case as put by the defence, both in the court and in his two video-recorded K
interviews, was that he just kept P1 as a torch for work purpose and he
L L
denied even knowing that P1 was a stunning device, let alone using it as a
M stunning device. M
N N
25. Section 24(2) of Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance
O provides that:- O
P P
“Any person who is proved or presumed to have had arms or
ammunition or both in his possession shall, until the contrary is
Q proved, be presumed to have known the nature of such arms or Q
ammunition or both as the case may be.”
R R
26. However, the section should be read and given effect as
S S
imposing on the defendant an evidential burden only as opposed to a legal
T or a persuasive burden of proof. (see Archhold Hong Kong 2017 para 25- T
20)
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C Evaluation of evidence C
D D
27. Having seen and heard the defendant’s explanation and after
E considering the prosecution case as a whole and also the final submission E
made by both counsels, I have no doubt in my mind that the defendant was
F F
not telling the truth and his explanation that he just possessed P1 as a torch
G without knowing the stunning function of the device is rejected for the G
following reasons:-
H H
I (1) The defendant denied having heard the cracking sound I
produced by P1 when PW1 also heard it at a distance
J J
of only 3 feet away from him. I find PW1 was an
K honest and credible witness whose evidence I can rely. K
In fact it was exactly this cracking noise which had
L L
alerted him to notice the appearance and the actions of
M the defendant. Clearly, the defendant was not telling M
the truth here and he just wanted to say that he never
N N
pressed the button or switch on P1 so as to operate its
O stunning function. O
P P
(2) According to P5, the examination report of P1, and also
Q P9, the video clip showing the function of P1, it is clear Q
to me that to operate the stunning function of P1
R R
requires one to switch on both switch and buttons,
S switch A and switch B, and finally press button P S
before electric arc were shown across the electrodes. I
T T
find it inherently impossible that the stunning function
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
will be accidentally operated without any human
C intervention. C
D D
In my judgment, I can reasonably infer that the
E existence of the cracking sounds was an indication that E
someone must have switched on the stunning function
F F
on P1 and finally pressed button P so as to produce the
G electric arc and therefore the cracking noise or the bang G
sound. As at that time it was only the defendant who
H H
was found holding P1 shortly after the cracking noise,
I it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant was the I
person who had actually pressed the button P in order
J J
to produce the stunning function and also the cracking
K noise of P1. K
L L
(3) While I would say that for the defendant to have paid
M $500 to buy a rechargeable torch from a hawker’s stall M
in Temple Street is a little bit expensive, I certainly will
N N
not go so far to say that it is inherently impossible given
O what he said about the costs of buying batteries for an O
ordinary torch. However, I find it hard to believe that
P P
a hawker would just sell a torch additionally equipped
Q with a stunning function without letting his customer Q
know the existence of this function and also the
R R
existence of those switches and buttons in order to
S operate the function. S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
To me, it was also difficult to believe that although the
C defendant had acquired the torch for more than two C
weeks, he never noticed the existence of the other
D D
buttons and switches on P1. It is my conclusion that
E the defendant’s decision to deny in court that he had E
charged P1 was because he well knew that by charging
F F
P1 it would be easy for him to discover the other
G switches or button at the bottom of P1. G
H H
(4) Even if P1 has produced sufficient light since the
I defendant bought it from the market two weeks ago I
before he was arrested, I still found it hard to believe
J J
that he would not bother to charge the torch at all to see
K if the charger was in good working order. According K
to the defendant, apart from its look, the primary reason
L L
why he would spend more money to buy P1 was
M because it was a rechargeable torch. It would be strange M
to say the least that the defendant would never see fit to
N N
charge P1 at all with the charger to see if the charger
O itself was also in good working order. O
P P
28. Based on the above reasons, although the defendant has tried
Q to rebut the presumption by way of his oral testimony and the production Q
of his employment contract, I am not satisfied, however, that he was telling
R R
the court the truth and what is more, in my judgment, he was just telling
S me a pack of lies with an attempt to conceal his knowledge of the nature of S
P1 as a stunning device.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Conclusion
C C
29. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable
D D
doubt and since at the time of the offence, defendant had possessed P1 with
E the knowledge that it was a stunning device and also without a licence, he E
is convicted as charged accordingly.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( A Kwok )
J District Judge 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 668/2016
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 668 OF 2016 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
GURUNG BIKASH
I ---------------------------- I
J J
Before: HH Judge A Kwok
K Date: 8 March 2017 K
Present: Mr J P Chandler, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Alan Lo, instructed by Robertsons, for the defendant
M Offence: Possession of arms without a licence (無牌管有槍械) M
N N
--------------------------------------
O O
REASONS FOR VERDICT
P
-------------------------------------- P
Q Q
The Charge
R R
1. Defendant (male) (Nepalese) appeared before me and pleaded
S S
not guilty to a single charge of possession of arms without a licence,
T contrary to section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap T
238.
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
C 2. The subject matter of the firearm in question is one stunning C
device.
D D
E Prosecution case E
F F
3. The fact of the prosecution case is simple and straightforward
G enough. It is basically a stop-and-search case. At 02:57 on 26 December G
2015, Sergeant 46753 (PW1) who was on plain-cloth duty was at the
H H
entrance of Bungalow, a nightclub situated at Ground Floor, No 60
I Wyndham Street, Central when he suddenly heard some cracking noise I
like a leakage of electricity. PW1 immediately turned around and at that
J J
juncture saw defendant who was only 3 feet away from him hid a black
K torch-like object in the inner pocket of his suit jacket. Feeling suspicious K
that the cracking noise was produced by a stun gun based on his past
L L
experience, PW1 notified his teammates from the Task Force Subunit of
M the Central Police Station to render assistance. M
N N
4. At 02:59, two police officers including PC 50551 (PW2)
O arrived. PW1 then pointed out defendant who was suspected of being in O
possession of a stun gun. PW2 then walked up to the defendant and
P P
revealed his police identity and conducted a body search.
Q Q
5. A search of the defendant revealed from the left inner pocket
R R
of his jacket a black torch-like object about 17 cm long. The object was
S later examined and determined to be a stun gun (Exhibit P1) by officers S
from the Electronic System Support Section, Communication Branch of
T T
the Hong Kong Police Force.
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C 6. Upon initial enquiries by PW2, defendant replied in English C
that he bought the torch for HK$500 at Temple Street in Yau Ma Tei,
D D
Kowloon. PW2 then declared arrest on him for possession of arms without
E licence. Under caution, defendant allegedly said, “Just for self-defence.” E
F F
7. Apart from PW1 and PW2, the two police officers, in this trial
G the prosecution case is to a large extent covered by the Admitted Facts G
(Exhibit P8) which deals with the production of the two uncontested video-
H H
recorded interviews (Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4), the examination report of
I P1 (Exhibit P5) and the report by a Dr Lai of the forensic pathologist I
service of the Department of Health on the effect of a stun gun being used
J J
against a person (Exhibit P6) as well as the photographs of the stun gun
K (Exhibit P7). K
L L
8. Finally, before the close of the prosecution case, I have
M directed the prosecution to produce a video clip showing P1 in operation M
and revealing the relevant switches and buttons as mentioned in the
N N
examination report. The defence did not object and the relevant video clip
O was formatted in a CD-ROM produced by the exhibit officer in court as O
Exhibit P9.
P P
Q 9. In this trial, the defence did not dispute the identity of the Q
defendant nor was the physical possession of P1 by him at the time of the
R R
offence. Put shortly, the defence denied knowledge on the part of the
S defendant that P1 was a stunning device. All along, it was contended that S
he possessed P1 and used it as a torch for his work purpose only.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Admissibility of the oral statement
C C
10. The defence objected to the admissibility of the defendant’s
D D
alleged verbal statement, “Just for self-defence”, under caution by PW2
E after his arrest at the scene. As a result, a voir dire was held and the E
alternative procedure was adopted during which the defendant elected not
F F
to give evidence.
G G
11. After hearing the evidence on the special issue from the police
H H
officers and also the submissions made by prosecution and defence, in the
I end, I ruled that the oral statement allegedly made by the defendant was I
not made voluntarily and the statement was therefore excluded as evidence.
J J
K 12. I came to this conclusion as it is obvious that both PW2, the K
arresting officer and the defendant were not native English speakers but
L L
they communicated with each other in English. However, as demonstrated
M by PW2 during the cross-examination by the defence, the arresting officers M
did not have a good command of spoken English. PW2 administered the
N N
caution in English in such a way that the defendant may not fully
O understand what he was saying. In particular, PW2 had said, “You are not O
object to say anything” when he should mean to say, “You are not obliged
P P
to say anything.”
Q Q
13. Also as a matter of fact, the police attempted to conduct a
R R
video interview record with the defendant as early as in the afternoon on
S 28 December 2015 on the day of his arrest. However, the defendant did S
not understand what the interview officers was trying to say to him in
T T
English. As a result, the video-recorded interview had to be terminated
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
and the police has to arrange a Nepali interpreter and that is why the other
C two video-recorded interviews (Exhibit P3 and P4) were only conducted C
one month later.
D D
E Defence case E
F F
14. Following my ruling on the voir dire, at the close of the
G prosecution case, I ruled that there is a case to answer. The defendant G
elected to give evidence but called no other witness.
H H
I 15. Defendant gave his evidence in Nepali with the assistance of I
a Nepali interpreter arranged by the court. He was born in Nepal and came
J J
to Hong Kong in 1997. He is now a permanent resident. He is a married
K man and resided with his wife and two young daughters who is 5 years old K
and 6 months old respectively.
L L
M 16. Defendant said he only attended primary 3 in a government M
school in Nepal. He worked as a security officer of a private company in
N N
Hong Kong earning HK$25,000 per month and he produced an
O employment contract (Exhibit D2). He was assigned to work at different O
bars or nightclubs in Central. He would stand at the entrance of the
P P
workplace and was responsible mainly for crowd control.
Q Q
17. At the time of his arrest, he was working at the Bungalow
R R
Club and was in charge of the security matter. According to the defendant,
S each security officer would carry a torch during work as it was dark inside S
the club. The employer company, however, did not provide a torch to its
T T
employee or security officers and he had to acquire it by himself.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 18. The defendant revealed that shortly before he was approached C
by PW2, the club was at that time very busy and there were lots of
D D
customers inside. Later he came to know that a group of his friends from
E Singapore came to see him and so he just went outside to the entrance to E
meet them up. Once outside, he tried to put the torch inside his left inner
F F
jacket pocket but the torch suddenly fell onto the ground. He picked it up
G and put it inside the jacket. He did not notice anything special in particular G
and he did not hear any cracking sound as told by PW1 as it was very noisy.
H H
I 19. After a short while, PW2 came up to him and after a brief I
investigation arrested him. Defendant explained that he bought P1 from a
J J
stall in the night market at Temple Street in mid-December. He needed to
K buy a new torch as his old torch was not working properly. P1 had cost K
him $500. The old torch cost him $300 only but the person who sold P1
L L
to him had said that P1 did not require batteries and could be re-charged.
M M
20. Defendant said usually it costs him about $20 to $30 per day
N N
just to buy batteries for his old torch. However, by 27 December, he said
O that he still had not charged P1 at all as there was still sufficient light O
produced by the torch.
P P
Q 21. Defendant denied knowing the existence of the other buttons Q
or switches on P1. All along he just used the on and off button on the barrel
R R
of the torch to operate the torch.
S S
22. Defendant maintained that it was only after his arrest that he
T T
came to know that P1 was a stunning device. He stressed to the court that
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
he was a family man with two very young children and he only bought P1
C as a torch and a torch only and bought it for his work purpose. He would C
not have bought it and kept P1 if he knew it was a stunning device.
D D
E Issues E
F F
23. The burden is on the prosecution to satisfy the court that in
G this case the defendant was at the material time in possession of P1, a G
stunning device, and he possessed P1 with the knowledge of its stunning
H H
nature, namely causing temporary incapacitation of a person.
I I
24. The defence took no issue with the fact that the defendant
J J
have had P1 in his physical possession at the time of his arrest. The defence
K case as put by the defence, both in the court and in his two video-recorded K
interviews, was that he just kept P1 as a torch for work purpose and he
L L
denied even knowing that P1 was a stunning device, let alone using it as a
M stunning device. M
N N
25. Section 24(2) of Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance
O provides that:- O
P P
“Any person who is proved or presumed to have had arms or
ammunition or both in his possession shall, until the contrary is
Q proved, be presumed to have known the nature of such arms or Q
ammunition or both as the case may be.”
R R
26. However, the section should be read and given effect as
S S
imposing on the defendant an evidential burden only as opposed to a legal
T or a persuasive burden of proof. (see Archhold Hong Kong 2017 para 25- T
20)
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
C Evaluation of evidence C
D D
27. Having seen and heard the defendant’s explanation and after
E considering the prosecution case as a whole and also the final submission E
made by both counsels, I have no doubt in my mind that the defendant was
F F
not telling the truth and his explanation that he just possessed P1 as a torch
G without knowing the stunning function of the device is rejected for the G
following reasons:-
H H
I (1) The defendant denied having heard the cracking sound I
produced by P1 when PW1 also heard it at a distance
J J
of only 3 feet away from him. I find PW1 was an
K honest and credible witness whose evidence I can rely. K
In fact it was exactly this cracking noise which had
L L
alerted him to notice the appearance and the actions of
M the defendant. Clearly, the defendant was not telling M
the truth here and he just wanted to say that he never
N N
pressed the button or switch on P1 so as to operate its
O stunning function. O
P P
(2) According to P5, the examination report of P1, and also
Q P9, the video clip showing the function of P1, it is clear Q
to me that to operate the stunning function of P1
R R
requires one to switch on both switch and buttons,
S switch A and switch B, and finally press button P S
before electric arc were shown across the electrodes. I
T T
find it inherently impossible that the stunning function
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
will be accidentally operated without any human
C intervention. C
D D
In my judgment, I can reasonably infer that the
E existence of the cracking sounds was an indication that E
someone must have switched on the stunning function
F F
on P1 and finally pressed button P so as to produce the
G electric arc and therefore the cracking noise or the bang G
sound. As at that time it was only the defendant who
H H
was found holding P1 shortly after the cracking noise,
I it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant was the I
person who had actually pressed the button P in order
J J
to produce the stunning function and also the cracking
K noise of P1. K
L L
(3) While I would say that for the defendant to have paid
M $500 to buy a rechargeable torch from a hawker’s stall M
in Temple Street is a little bit expensive, I certainly will
N N
not go so far to say that it is inherently impossible given
O what he said about the costs of buying batteries for an O
ordinary torch. However, I find it hard to believe that
P P
a hawker would just sell a torch additionally equipped
Q with a stunning function without letting his customer Q
know the existence of this function and also the
R R
existence of those switches and buttons in order to
S operate the function. S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
To me, it was also difficult to believe that although the
C defendant had acquired the torch for more than two C
weeks, he never noticed the existence of the other
D D
buttons and switches on P1. It is my conclusion that
E the defendant’s decision to deny in court that he had E
charged P1 was because he well knew that by charging
F F
P1 it would be easy for him to discover the other
G switches or button at the bottom of P1. G
H H
(4) Even if P1 has produced sufficient light since the
I defendant bought it from the market two weeks ago I
before he was arrested, I still found it hard to believe
J J
that he would not bother to charge the torch at all to see
K if the charger was in good working order. According K
to the defendant, apart from its look, the primary reason
L L
why he would spend more money to buy P1 was
M because it was a rechargeable torch. It would be strange M
to say the least that the defendant would never see fit to
N N
charge P1 at all with the charger to see if the charger
O itself was also in good working order. O
P P
28. Based on the above reasons, although the defendant has tried
Q to rebut the presumption by way of his oral testimony and the production Q
of his employment contract, I am not satisfied, however, that he was telling
R R
the court the truth and what is more, in my judgment, he was just telling
S me a pack of lies with an attempt to conceal his knowledge of the nature of S
P1 as a stunning device.
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Conclusion
C C
29. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable
D D
doubt and since at the time of the offence, defendant had possessed P1 with
E the knowledge that it was a stunning device and also without a licence, he E
is convicted as charged accordingly.
F F
G G
H H
I I
( A Kwok )
J District Judge 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