Read the full judgment text of CACC 000262/1992 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 January 1993 before Power JA, Macdougall JA, Liu J.
Criminal law – sentencing – possession of firearm and ammunition – using firearm to resist lawful arrest – Firearm and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238) ss.13 and 17(1) – applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a 7.62 x 25mm self-loading revolver together with three magazines and 23 rounds of ammunition, and to using the firearm to resist arrest after firing a shot during a struggle with police – whether Ho Chun guidelines applied retrospectively to offences committed before that judgment – held, no; guidelines in force at time of offence were those in A.G. v. Lai Shu-piu and A.G. v. Wong Kwai-pui – whether sentence on first count excessive – held, yes; nine-year sentence reduced to eight years – whether second count sentence of ten years manifestly excessive or wrong in principle – held, no; the sentence was entirely proper, the judge's error as to the statutory maximum being immaterial – whether first count absorbed by second count – held, no; offences were separate and distinct and consecutive sentences were appropriate, with adjustment under the totality principle – consequence: overall sentence reduced from 14 to 13 years' imprisonment, with the ten-year sentence to commence after three years of the eight-year sentence – clarification that Ho Chun's eight-year floor applies to possession of an unloaded firearm, and that a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm with ammunition, attracts a heavier sentence.
Legal issues: Applicability of sentencing guidelines in R v Ho Chun to offences committed before that judgment · Whether first count sentence for possession of firearm was excessive · Whether sentence for using firearm to resist arrest was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle · Whether first count was absorbed by the second count
Outcome: Application granted and treated as the hearing of the appeal; appeal allowed in part — first count sentence reduced from nine to eight years' imprisonment; second count sentence of ten years upheld; consecutive order adjusted so the second count commences after three years (not four) of the first, giving an overall sentence of 13 years' imprisonment.
Cited by 5 cases