Cheung Man-tsun v. The Queen

CACC000207/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 207 OF 1975

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J. Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 28th May, 1975.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences, (1) possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, (2) possession of an imitation firearm, and (3) possession of an explosive substance. The offensive weapon was a ten inch knife.

2. This is a very unusual case. Acting upon information, certain police officers stopped the appellant in the street and the articles, the subject matter of the charges, were found in a bag which he was carrying. He explained the possession of the imitation firearm by saying that he had previously been employed at a film studio and he had kept this as a souvenir.

3. The explosive substance was described as being a small glass bottle closed by a metal screw-on cap containing five grammes of firework composition. Two short lengths of quick match extruded through a hole in the metal cap as a means of setting off the device. It was stated that "initiation" would be almost instantaneous and that the resulting explosion would not be very severe since the weight of the explosive substance was about that of a ten cent coin. It would, however, if the device were ignited, produce glass fragmentation of the bottle in which the substance was contained, and this might extend to a radius of five metres.

4. At the hearing of the appeal on May 1st, we asked for further reports from the police and from a probation officer. No report was submitted to the court from the police when we resumed hearing of the appeal on the 28th May. However, there was placed before us a probation officer's report which is very much in favour of the appellant. It is a well drafted report and contains information not only from a member of his family but also from his fiancee and from his employer. It appears that he is of good character and has an excellent work record.

5. When he was cautioned by the police, he admitted that these articles belonged to him and said that they were "used as a protection in dealing with white powder". He also said that he wanted to move them from where he was keeping them into another safe place. At the hearing of the appeal he said this statement was dictated to him by the police. He told the court that he wanted to apply for a job at a film studio as an effects man and that this explosive device was to show them that he was competent in the making and control of such things.

6. The appellant has a clean record and we have reached the opinion, albeit with some hesitation, that he was in possession of the explosive substance for reasons of vanity rather than for reasons connected with criminal conduct. We considered whether we should reduce the sentences and pass a suspended sentence but the offence of being in possession of an offensive weapon attracts a mandatory sentence. In the event, we allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence of two years for being in possession of an offensive weapon and the sentence of 4 ½ years for being in possession of an explosive substance are to be reduced to six months each. All three sentences are to be served concurrently. This means that the appellant will serve a total of six months' imprisonment.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Carolan for crown.