A A
HCCC 142/2021
[2022] HKCFI 595
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 142 OF 2021
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Chan Lap-ming, Castor
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon D’Almada Remedios J H
Date: 31 January 2022 at 3.26 pm
Present: Mr Dominic Ngai, SPP of Department of Justice, for
I I
HKSAR
Mr Phil Chau, SC, instructed by Y K Lau & Chu,
J assigned by DLA, for the accused J
Offence: Possession of arms and ammunition without a licence
(無牌管有槍械及彈藥)
K K
---------------------------------
L
Transcript of the Audio Recording
L
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: On 29 June 2021, you pleaded guilty to an amended charge
before a magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy. The
N charge was possession of arms and ammunition without a N
licence, contrary to Section 13(1) and (2) of the Firearms
O and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238. At the same time you O
admitted the Summary of Facts and you were committed here to
the Court of First Instance for sentence.
P P
You admitted that on 9 June 2020, at the Ground Floor, of
Block B, Choza Rico, Shek Po Tsuen, Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen
Q Long, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you had in your Q
possession a quantity of arms and ammunition, namely, a
R pistol, 390 rounds of ammunition in 9 x 19 millimetre R
calibre and four magazines without a licence.
S From the Summary of Facts you admitted that on 9 June 2020, S
at about 0904 hours, the police escorted you to your
residence which was the address as stated in the charge.
T T
Inside your bedroom found inside a locked safe were the
firearms and ammunition, as stated in the charge. You said
U that the safe belonged to you but the combination lock was U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 1 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
broken. The key of the locked safe was kept inside a drawer
near the computer desk in your bedroom. In your presence
B the safe was opened with the key taken from the drawer and, B
as I mentioned, the items as stated in the charge were found
inside the safe.
C C
Inside the drawer where the key was seized, there were items
D as listed at paragraph 4 of the Summary of Facts, which I D
will not read through. There are no disputes that all these
items were connected with or in relation to arms and
E ammunition. On the computer desk was also one certificate E
issued by Double Tap, a shooting club, issued to you, and a
book of build your own semi-auto hand guns was also found.
F At the last court hearing I asked the prosecution to provide F
me with further information and photographs of the items
G seized in paragraph 4 of the Summary of Facts. G
I have a set of photographs which show the items seized and
H also a very short explanation/observation by a firearms H
expert. Under paragraph 4, item 2, it is stated there are
two red boxes, each containing a pistol stand. From the
I I
photos as exhibited by the prosecution and which has been
admitted by the defence is a box in photo 2 of a pistol
J frame kit. Both boxes contain a pistol frame, as stated by J
the firearm examiner, and his comments are that this is a
pistol frame, the basic unit of a firearm which houses the
K firing and breach mechanism and to which the barrel and K
grips are attached. He explains what the kit consists of.
L L
In short, there is no dispute by Mr Chau that this pistol
frame could be, if there were parts available, be used to
M assemble a real genuine firearm or pistol. I accept from M
the facts as stated that there were no further parts found
in your house which could have been assembled to make these
N two frames real firearms. I am informed by Mr Ngai, of the N
prosecution, however, that at the time of commission of this
offence there was no legislation in respect of these parts
O O
of a gun.
P However, after 2021, under Cap 238D, I am informed that if P
you had been found in possession of these frames this would
constitute an offence. The amendment to the ordinance as I
Q understand after 2021 is such that possession of parts of a Q
firearm is an offence. I note, however, clearly, that this
was not an offence at the time you were arrested.
R R
As for the pistol that was found in your possession, it was
S attached with a target pointer and designed to discharge the S
ammunition of 9 x 19 calibre and that, principally, is the
ammunition that was found in possession of you, the bullets.
T The bullets, or the ammunition, were contained in nine boxes T
and you had a total of 390 bullets and the bullets were
U
suitable to be discharged in the pistol found in your U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 2 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
possession. The pistol was functional and capable of
discharging the bullets. The four magazines were designed
B to store those bullets and the magazines were suitable to be B
used in the pistol.
C Defendant, you are now 39 years of age. You are single and C
live with your parents. You have a clear record. Prior to
D your arrest you worked as a Vice-President, a Corporate D
Specialist MPF Manager at HSBC. You earned $36,000 per
month and I am told were the sole breadwinner for your
E family. A total of 14 mitigating letters from various E
people have spoken of your good character. You are
described as a filial son, helpful, well respected by your
F family, friends, colleagues and clients. Your love and care F
for your family and others are well documented in the
G mitigation letters. G
You have pleaded guilty to an offence of possession of
H firearms and ammunition without a licence. A very H
comprehensive judgment on the possession of firearms and
ammunition was given by the Court of Appeal in the case of
I I
Tsiang On Yan [2019] 5 HKLRD 100. That was, as I can see,
the most recent case handed down by the Court of Appeal on
J this offence. Zervos JA gave judgment for the court in that J
case. The Court of Appeal considered many of the
authorities prior to that case for possession under section
K 13 and the appropriate starting point for this offence and K
the facts which may warrant a departure from the starting
point.
L L
At paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 48, 51 and 52 the court referred
M to a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment as an M
appropriate starting point for this offence. At para 45,
the court said:
N N
“It seems clear that a person in possession of a
firearm with loaded ammunition or a firearm with
O O
ammunition capable of immediate use, a starting point
of 12 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate”.
P P
The court then went on to consider another case, which is
Chan Chi Fun. Chan Chi Fun stated that:
Q Q
“In determining the appropriate sentence, the
mitigating and aggravating factors included...”
R R
And I go onto say:
S S
“(1) the types of firearm and ammunition involved;
T (2) whether the defendant physically carries the T
firearm and ammunition;
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 3 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
(3) whether the firearm is loaded;
B (4) whether the firearm has been used; B
(5) whether the defendant intends to use the firearm
C for illegal purposes; C
D (6) whether the firearm and ammunition are properly D
stored or whether they are accessible by
offenders;
E E
(7) whether the defendant has a clear record”.
F Still referring to Chan the court, at paragraph 47, said: F
G “The court went on to emphasise that the level of G
sentence was dependent on the sentencing court’s view
of the potential risk posed by the arms and ammunition
H in the defendant’s possession, taking into account the H
circumstances of the case, the defendant’s background
and the possibility of the arms and ammunition in
I I
question”.
J At paragraph 48, Zervos JA went on to say: J
“In light of the stringent gun control regime in Hong
K Kong, it is hard to imagine why a person would have an K
unlicensed firearm and ammunition in his possession,
other than for them to be used for a criminal purpose.
L L
A firearm with ammunition is a lethal weapon and a
serious danger to the public. It is for this reason,
M depending on the nature and quantity of the firearms M
and ammunition involved and the circumstances in which
the offence was committed, that a starting point of 12
N years’ imprisonment would be appropriate”. N
Zervos JA then went on to observe the difference of the
O O
provisions in the ordinance, at paragraphs 49, 50 and 35 of
Tsiang.
P P
“The offence provisions are structured so that for
simple possession of arms or ammunition without a
Q licence...” Q
That is, section 13 of which this defendant is charged with.
R R
“...a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment is
S imposed, while for possession of the arms or ammunition S
that are used or intended to be used to endanger life
or to commit a crime, a maximum penalty of life
T imprisonment is imposed”. T
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 4 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
And he referred to sections 16, 17 and 18 of the ordinance.
The court went on to observe:
B B
“For the more serious offences, where a person has in
his possession arms or ammunition that is used or
C intended to be used to endanger life or for some other C
criminal purpose, the penalty is the maximum known to
D law of life imprisonment”. D
And I refer to paragraph 34 of Tsiang. So those in
E possession of such a weapon to endanger life or commit a E
crime may be covered by other offences, which a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment is imposed. At paragraph 52,
F Zervos JA went on to say: F
G “A firearm and ammunition with the potential to kill or G
maim a person is a lethal weapon which ranks high in
the level of prohibited items under this offence. A
H person convicted of possession of such a firearm and H
ammunition can normally expect a sentence after trial
of 12 years’ imprisonment unless there are special
I I
features that would warrant a reduction”.
J It is, therefore, in a charge like this that a defendant is J
expected to receive a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment of
which senior counsel for the defendant, Mr Phil Chau, has
K accepted. Mr Chau, counsel for the defendant, however K
emphasised there are special features that warrant a
reduction from the starting point. The first of those is
L L
that the defendant is a gun enthusiast.
M It is suggested by Mr Chau that the defendant’s mother M
mentioned in her letter the defendant’s hobby of collecting
various items, including air pistols, ever since he was
N young. The defendant became interested in air pistols back N
in primary school when he was about seven or eight years
old. He had also been collecting air pistol magazines ever
O O
since then. Mr Chau submitted over the years the defendant
has become obsessive about his hobby and his obsession may
P have hindered his ability to act sensibly and rationally in P
relation to the present offence. Mr Chau says as the
defendant was a gun enthusiast he posed minimal risk to the
Q public. Q
I can see no evidence suggesting of the defendant’s interest
R R
in guns or being an enthusiast from an early age. There are
no air pistol magazines found by the police and no air
S pistols found or seized. Everything that was seized in S
relation to guns was stated in the Summary of Facts, at
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. The receipts were dated April or May
T 2020. If what the mother suggests that the defendant was a T
gun enthusiast since the age of seven, his interest, as I
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 5 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
can see, if any, did not manifest itself until sometime late
in May 2020.
B B
As I mentioned, there was no air pistol magazines found.
There were no air pistols. All the matters related in
C paragraph 4 found were in relation to real firearms. If it C
was that the defendant’s interest dated back to when he was
D a young boy, it certainly remained dormant until recent or D
close to the time of the offence, June 2020. That means it
remained dormant for about 31 years. I am of the view that
E the defendant’s interest in real firearms and ammunition E
only came about sometime in or about 2020. I reject the
fact the defendant was a gun enthusiast from an early age.
F F
The defendant had a manual to assemble a genuine gun, “Build
G Your Own Semi-Automatic Manual” and also had a pamphlet or G
flyer from Sportsman’s Den on where to buy guns and
ammunition which were available for purchase. Mr Chau, in
H his submissions, said the manual basically guides the reader H
through the various processes of assembling one’s own
handgun. This was the method adopted by the defendant. Mr
I I
Chau said it must be worth remembering that the defendant
bought the parts for the gun separately. A gun was then
J assembled piecemeal by the defendant. J
Mr Chau said the two frame kits were to be used as spare
K parts. I wholly reject that submission that they were to be K
spare parts. It is clear that these frame kits were
potentially to be used to be assembled as another or two
L L
other real firearms if the defendant had the relevant parts.
Why would the defendant need spare parts if this gun was not
M intended to be used? M
Mr Chau said the defendant purchased various components and
N tools just to learn how to build a pistol. He said the N
defendant committed the offences due to his obsession with
collecting firearms and ammunition. He did not fully
O O
realise the serious consequences of his hobby. I also
reject the mitigation that the defendant did not fully
P realise the serious consequences of his hobby. P
The defendant is an educated man. He is an associate
Q degree-holder from SPACE at Hong Kong U and is a Q
Vice-President and Corporate Specialist MPF Manager at HSBC.
It is beyond doubt that the defendant knew that it was
R R
illegal to possess a firearm and ammunition. The hiding of
the pistol and the extremely large quantity of bullets in
S the safe reveal that the defendant knew of the illegality S
and seriousness of it. I further take the view the
defendant deliberately imported the parts of a gun to
T assemble himself to avoid detection by the authorities. T
This was a well-planned scheme for him to possess a firearm.
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 6 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
I consider the importation of the parts an aggravating
factor.
B B
It was submitted that a further feature warranting a
discount is that there is no evidence that the defendant
C intended to use the firearm for any illegal purpose and it C
was not loaded and had never been fired. Mr Chau submitted
D the ammunition was not opened until the police found it and D
opened it from its package to inspect it. I have already
dealt with this ground above and I do not consider this a
E special feature warranting a reduction. E
Another feature that Mr Chau says warrants a reduction is
F that the pistol, magazine and bullets were securely locked F
away in a safe in the defendant’s bedroom and the
G defendant’s clear record. In the case of Chan in paragraph G
18, the court stated that:
H “The level of sentence was dependent on the sentencing H
court’s view of the potential risk posed by the arms
and ammunition in the defendant’s possession, taking
I I
into account the circumstances of the case, the
defendant’s background and the possibility of the arms
J and ammunition in question being used”. J
I have noted earlier the pistol and the 390 bullets were
K together and clearly ready to be used. I accept there was K
no real blatant risk that the pistol and the bullets would
be accessible to others as it was kept in a safe in the
L L
defendant’s bedroom. However, the combination lock of the
safe was broken and it could be opened with a key which was
M kept in a drawer in the defendant’s bedroom that was not M
locked.
N There was a possibility that they could be accessible to N
others, for example, if his home were to be burgled, but I
do not consider it very high. I still do not consider this
O O
to be a mitigating factor as the hiding of the pistol with a
significant amount of bullets together reveals that the
P defendant armed himself with a firearm in working condition P
and with ammunition available for its use. As stated by
Zervos JA:
Q Q
“It is hard to imagine why a person would have an
unlicensed firearm and ammunition in his possession,
R R
other than for them to be used for a criminal purpose”.
S Given the circumstances of how the defendant imported the S
parts of the gun and assembled it himself, the significant
amount of bullets and the firearm and ammunition being kept
T was but one step away from its use. There being no special T
features which warrant a reduction, I adopt a starting point
U
of 12 years’ imprisonment. U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 7 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Defendant, you have pleaded guilty at the earliest
B opportunity and I give you the full one-third discount and B
therefore I reduce that term to which you shall serve a
period of 8 years’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
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
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 8 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
HCCC 142/2021
[2022] HKCFI 595
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 142 OF 2021
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Chan Lap-ming, Castor
G G
-----------------
H Before: Hon D’Almada Remedios J H
Date: 31 January 2022 at 3.26 pm
Present: Mr Dominic Ngai, SPP of Department of Justice, for
I I
HKSAR
Mr Phil Chau, SC, instructed by Y K Lau & Chu,
J assigned by DLA, for the accused J
Offence: Possession of arms and ammunition without a licence
(無牌管有槍械及彈藥)
K K
---------------------------------
L
Transcript of the Audio Recording
L
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: On 29 June 2021, you pleaded guilty to an amended charge
before a magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy. The
N charge was possession of arms and ammunition without a N
licence, contrary to Section 13(1) and (2) of the Firearms
O and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238. At the same time you O
admitted the Summary of Facts and you were committed here to
the Court of First Instance for sentence.
P P
You admitted that on 9 June 2020, at the Ground Floor, of
Block B, Choza Rico, Shek Po Tsuen, Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen
Q Long, New Territories, in Hong Kong, you had in your Q
possession a quantity of arms and ammunition, namely, a
R pistol, 390 rounds of ammunition in 9 x 19 millimetre R
calibre and four magazines without a licence.
S From the Summary of Facts you admitted that on 9 June 2020, S
at about 0904 hours, the police escorted you to your
residence which was the address as stated in the charge.
T T
Inside your bedroom found inside a locked safe were the
firearms and ammunition, as stated in the charge. You said
U that the safe belonged to you but the combination lock was U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 1 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
broken. The key of the locked safe was kept inside a drawer
near the computer desk in your bedroom. In your presence
B the safe was opened with the key taken from the drawer and, B
as I mentioned, the items as stated in the charge were found
inside the safe.
C C
Inside the drawer where the key was seized, there were items
D as listed at paragraph 4 of the Summary of Facts, which I D
will not read through. There are no disputes that all these
items were connected with or in relation to arms and
E ammunition. On the computer desk was also one certificate E
issued by Double Tap, a shooting club, issued to you, and a
book of build your own semi-auto hand guns was also found.
F At the last court hearing I asked the prosecution to provide F
me with further information and photographs of the items
G seized in paragraph 4 of the Summary of Facts. G
I have a set of photographs which show the items seized and
H also a very short explanation/observation by a firearms H
expert. Under paragraph 4, item 2, it is stated there are
two red boxes, each containing a pistol stand. From the
I I
photos as exhibited by the prosecution and which has been
admitted by the defence is a box in photo 2 of a pistol
J frame kit. Both boxes contain a pistol frame, as stated by J
the firearm examiner, and his comments are that this is a
pistol frame, the basic unit of a firearm which houses the
K firing and breach mechanism and to which the barrel and K
grips are attached. He explains what the kit consists of.
L L
In short, there is no dispute by Mr Chau that this pistol
frame could be, if there were parts available, be used to
M assemble a real genuine firearm or pistol. I accept from M
the facts as stated that there were no further parts found
in your house which could have been assembled to make these
N two frames real firearms. I am informed by Mr Ngai, of the N
prosecution, however, that at the time of commission of this
offence there was no legislation in respect of these parts
O O
of a gun.
P However, after 2021, under Cap 238D, I am informed that if P
you had been found in possession of these frames this would
constitute an offence. The amendment to the ordinance as I
Q understand after 2021 is such that possession of parts of a Q
firearm is an offence. I note, however, clearly, that this
was not an offence at the time you were arrested.
R R
As for the pistol that was found in your possession, it was
S attached with a target pointer and designed to discharge the S
ammunition of 9 x 19 calibre and that, principally, is the
ammunition that was found in possession of you, the bullets.
T The bullets, or the ammunition, were contained in nine boxes T
and you had a total of 390 bullets and the bullets were
U
suitable to be discharged in the pistol found in your U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 2 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
possession. The pistol was functional and capable of
discharging the bullets. The four magazines were designed
B to store those bullets and the magazines were suitable to be B
used in the pistol.
C Defendant, you are now 39 years of age. You are single and C
live with your parents. You have a clear record. Prior to
D your arrest you worked as a Vice-President, a Corporate D
Specialist MPF Manager at HSBC. You earned $36,000 per
month and I am told were the sole breadwinner for your
E family. A total of 14 mitigating letters from various E
people have spoken of your good character. You are
described as a filial son, helpful, well respected by your
F family, friends, colleagues and clients. Your love and care F
for your family and others are well documented in the
G mitigation letters. G
You have pleaded guilty to an offence of possession of
H firearms and ammunition without a licence. A very H
comprehensive judgment on the possession of firearms and
ammunition was given by the Court of Appeal in the case of
I I
Tsiang On Yan [2019] 5 HKLRD 100. That was, as I can see,
the most recent case handed down by the Court of Appeal on
J this offence. Zervos JA gave judgment for the court in that J
case. The Court of Appeal considered many of the
authorities prior to that case for possession under section
K 13 and the appropriate starting point for this offence and K
the facts which may warrant a departure from the starting
point.
L L
At paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 48, 51 and 52 the court referred
M to a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment as an M
appropriate starting point for this offence. At para 45,
the court said:
N N
“It seems clear that a person in possession of a
firearm with loaded ammunition or a firearm with
O O
ammunition capable of immediate use, a starting point
of 12 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate”.
P P
The court then went on to consider another case, which is
Chan Chi Fun. Chan Chi Fun stated that:
Q Q
“In determining the appropriate sentence, the
mitigating and aggravating factors included...”
R R
And I go onto say:
S S
“(1) the types of firearm and ammunition involved;
T (2) whether the defendant physically carries the T
firearm and ammunition;
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 3 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
(3) whether the firearm is loaded;
B (4) whether the firearm has been used; B
(5) whether the defendant intends to use the firearm
C for illegal purposes; C
D (6) whether the firearm and ammunition are properly D
stored or whether they are accessible by
offenders;
E E
(7) whether the defendant has a clear record”.
F Still referring to Chan the court, at paragraph 47, said: F
G “The court went on to emphasise that the level of G
sentence was dependent on the sentencing court’s view
of the potential risk posed by the arms and ammunition
H in the defendant’s possession, taking into account the H
circumstances of the case, the defendant’s background
and the possibility of the arms and ammunition in
I I
question”.
J At paragraph 48, Zervos JA went on to say: J
“In light of the stringent gun control regime in Hong
K Kong, it is hard to imagine why a person would have an K
unlicensed firearm and ammunition in his possession,
other than for them to be used for a criminal purpose.
L L
A firearm with ammunition is a lethal weapon and a
serious danger to the public. It is for this reason,
M depending on the nature and quantity of the firearms M
and ammunition involved and the circumstances in which
the offence was committed, that a starting point of 12
N years’ imprisonment would be appropriate”. N
Zervos JA then went on to observe the difference of the
O O
provisions in the ordinance, at paragraphs 49, 50 and 35 of
Tsiang.
P P
“The offence provisions are structured so that for
simple possession of arms or ammunition without a
Q licence...” Q
That is, section 13 of which this defendant is charged with.
R R
“...a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment is
S imposed, while for possession of the arms or ammunition S
that are used or intended to be used to endanger life
or to commit a crime, a maximum penalty of life
T imprisonment is imposed”. T
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 4 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
And he referred to sections 16, 17 and 18 of the ordinance.
The court went on to observe:
B B
“For the more serious offences, where a person has in
his possession arms or ammunition that is used or
C intended to be used to endanger life or for some other C
criminal purpose, the penalty is the maximum known to
D law of life imprisonment”. D
And I refer to paragraph 34 of Tsiang. So those in
E possession of such a weapon to endanger life or commit a E
crime may be covered by other offences, which a maximum
penalty of life imprisonment is imposed. At paragraph 52,
F Zervos JA went on to say: F
G “A firearm and ammunition with the potential to kill or G
maim a person is a lethal weapon which ranks high in
the level of prohibited items under this offence. A
H person convicted of possession of such a firearm and H
ammunition can normally expect a sentence after trial
of 12 years’ imprisonment unless there are special
I I
features that would warrant a reduction”.
J It is, therefore, in a charge like this that a defendant is J
expected to receive a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment of
which senior counsel for the defendant, Mr Phil Chau, has
K accepted. Mr Chau, counsel for the defendant, however K
emphasised there are special features that warrant a
reduction from the starting point. The first of those is
L L
that the defendant is a gun enthusiast.
M It is suggested by Mr Chau that the defendant’s mother M
mentioned in her letter the defendant’s hobby of collecting
various items, including air pistols, ever since he was
N young. The defendant became interested in air pistols back N
in primary school when he was about seven or eight years
old. He had also been collecting air pistol magazines ever
O O
since then. Mr Chau submitted over the years the defendant
has become obsessive about his hobby and his obsession may
P have hindered his ability to act sensibly and rationally in P
relation to the present offence. Mr Chau says as the
defendant was a gun enthusiast he posed minimal risk to the
Q public. Q
I can see no evidence suggesting of the defendant’s interest
R R
in guns or being an enthusiast from an early age. There are
no air pistol magazines found by the police and no air
S pistols found or seized. Everything that was seized in S
relation to guns was stated in the Summary of Facts, at
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. The receipts were dated April or May
T 2020. If what the mother suggests that the defendant was a T
gun enthusiast since the age of seven, his interest, as I
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 5 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
can see, if any, did not manifest itself until sometime late
in May 2020.
B B
As I mentioned, there was no air pistol magazines found.
There were no air pistols. All the matters related in
C paragraph 4 found were in relation to real firearms. If it C
was that the defendant’s interest dated back to when he was
D a young boy, it certainly remained dormant until recent or D
close to the time of the offence, June 2020. That means it
remained dormant for about 31 years. I am of the view that
E the defendant’s interest in real firearms and ammunition E
only came about sometime in or about 2020. I reject the
fact the defendant was a gun enthusiast from an early age.
F F
The defendant had a manual to assemble a genuine gun, “Build
G Your Own Semi-Automatic Manual” and also had a pamphlet or G
flyer from Sportsman’s Den on where to buy guns and
ammunition which were available for purchase. Mr Chau, in
H his submissions, said the manual basically guides the reader H
through the various processes of assembling one’s own
handgun. This was the method adopted by the defendant. Mr
I I
Chau said it must be worth remembering that the defendant
bought the parts for the gun separately. A gun was then
J assembled piecemeal by the defendant. J
Mr Chau said the two frame kits were to be used as spare
K parts. I wholly reject that submission that they were to be K
spare parts. It is clear that these frame kits were
potentially to be used to be assembled as another or two
L L
other real firearms if the defendant had the relevant parts.
Why would the defendant need spare parts if this gun was not
M intended to be used? M
Mr Chau said the defendant purchased various components and
N tools just to learn how to build a pistol. He said the N
defendant committed the offences due to his obsession with
collecting firearms and ammunition. He did not fully
O O
realise the serious consequences of his hobby. I also
reject the mitigation that the defendant did not fully
P realise the serious consequences of his hobby. P
The defendant is an educated man. He is an associate
Q degree-holder from SPACE at Hong Kong U and is a Q
Vice-President and Corporate Specialist MPF Manager at HSBC.
It is beyond doubt that the defendant knew that it was
R R
illegal to possess a firearm and ammunition. The hiding of
the pistol and the extremely large quantity of bullets in
S the safe reveal that the defendant knew of the illegality S
and seriousness of it. I further take the view the
defendant deliberately imported the parts of a gun to
T assemble himself to avoid detection by the authorities. T
This was a well-planned scheme for him to possess a firearm.
U U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 6 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
I consider the importation of the parts an aggravating
factor.
B B
It was submitted that a further feature warranting a
discount is that there is no evidence that the defendant
C intended to use the firearm for any illegal purpose and it C
was not loaded and had never been fired. Mr Chau submitted
D the ammunition was not opened until the police found it and D
opened it from its package to inspect it. I have already
dealt with this ground above and I do not consider this a
E special feature warranting a reduction. E
Another feature that Mr Chau says warrants a reduction is
F that the pistol, magazine and bullets were securely locked F
away in a safe in the defendant’s bedroom and the
G defendant’s clear record. In the case of Chan in paragraph G
18, the court stated that:
H “The level of sentence was dependent on the sentencing H
court’s view of the potential risk posed by the arms
and ammunition in the defendant’s possession, taking
I I
into account the circumstances of the case, the
defendant’s background and the possibility of the arms
J and ammunition in question being used”. J
I have noted earlier the pistol and the 390 bullets were
K together and clearly ready to be used. I accept there was K
no real blatant risk that the pistol and the bullets would
be accessible to others as it was kept in a safe in the
L L
defendant’s bedroom. However, the combination lock of the
safe was broken and it could be opened with a key which was
M kept in a drawer in the defendant’s bedroom that was not M
locked.
N There was a possibility that they could be accessible to N
others, for example, if his home were to be burgled, but I
do not consider it very high. I still do not consider this
O O
to be a mitigating factor as the hiding of the pistol with a
significant amount of bullets together reveals that the
P defendant armed himself with a firearm in working condition P
and with ammunition available for its use. As stated by
Zervos JA:
Q Q
“It is hard to imagine why a person would have an
unlicensed firearm and ammunition in his possession,
R R
other than for them to be used for a criminal purpose”.
S Given the circumstances of how the defendant imported the S
parts of the gun and assembled it himself, the significant
amount of bullets and the firearm and ammunition being kept
T was but one step away from its use. There being no special T
features which warrant a reduction, I adopt a starting point
U
of 12 years’ imprisonment. U
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 7 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
Defendant, you have pleaded guilty at the earliest
B opportunity and I give you the full one-third discount and B
therefore I reduce that term to which you shall serve a
period of 8 years’ imprisonment.
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
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
CRT1/31.1.2022/CP 8 HCCC 142/2021(1)/Sentence
V V