CRIMINAL CASE NO. 414 OF 2009
COURT: The defendant was arrested on 15 May 2009 for a robbery as to which the jury, on my direction, yesterday acquitted him.
However, when the defendant’s address in the Kwai Shing West Estate at Kwai Chung was searched, there was found a stun gun which the defendant immediately admitted had been given to him by a friend. The gun functioned properly. It was capable of generating 53 high voltage pulses continuously in three seconds, with an average peak-to-peak pulsating voltage of about 71.81 kilo-volts, or, to put that another way, 71,800 volts, approximately, across a resistor load simulating the resistance of the human body.
The electric shocks generated by this gun were capable of causing a human being to lose his ability to stand up, and would leave him immobilised, incapacitated, dazed and weak, and it is hardly surprising, therefore, that the courts have treated such offences as very serious offences of their kind.
Now, in your favour, it can be said that despite three offences for comparatively minor violence, for which on each occasion you received a sentence of one kind or another of imprisonment, you have managed to stay out of trouble for nearly 4 years. I bear in mind also that you have had the stress of facing a trial for an offence on which ultimately there was no case for you to answer. Most importantly, you have at all times accepted responsibility for the offence, and have pleaded guilty to it, and for this you will receive the full credit which is due to you.
I have looked at other decisions of the courts, including HKSAR v Li Hung Kwan [2003] 1 HKLRD 204. There, the gun was capable of discharging 12,000 volts into the human body, a much less powerful weapon than the one in your possession, and a sentence of 20 months after trial was considered appropriate, reduced in that case to a year after the plea.
In that same case there is a useful analysis of eight other similar cases. One of those cited is HKSAR v Yung Ting Chun (unrep., CACC 164/1999). That involved a gun which was capable of discharging 75,000 volts, and the sentence after trial in that case was 2½ years’ imprisonment. In one further case, R v Wong Chuen Pong (unrep., CACC 579/1996), the stun gun was capable of discharging 60,000 volts, and a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment was imposed after a plea of guilty.
It seems to me that each case must be decided on its own facts. In this case, I consider that a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate, as there is no evidence that the gun was to be used in a criminal venture. If it had been, the sentence would have been considerably longer.
Accordingly, I shall discount this to reflect your guilty plea. The sentence I impose will be a term of 20 months' imprisonment.