HKSAR v. Ta Quang Cuong

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 441/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 13 September 2010.

1. The Defendants each pleads guilty to 1 count of Possession of arms without a licence.  The arms concerned for the 1 st Defendant are 2 self-loading blank pistols and 1 air gun and that of the 2 nd Defendant are 2 air guns.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.DCCC 441/2010
Court
District Court
Date13 Sep 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 441/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 441 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  (1)TA QUANG CUONG  
  (2)NGUYEN VAN HUNG  
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coram: HH Judge S. T. Poon
Date: 13 September 2010
Present: Mr. Trevor Beel, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
Mr. Kenneth G. M. Chan instructed by Messrs Leo Cheng & Co. for 1st Defendant.
Mr. Raymond W. S. Chan instructed by Messrs Yung, Yu Yuen & Co. for 2nd Defendant.
Offence:    (1)     Possession of arms without licence, contrary to section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. 違反香港法例第238章第13條, 火器及彈藥條例,無牌管有槍械或彈藥. (D1)
(2) Possession of arms without licence, contrary to section 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238. 違反香港法例第238章第13條, 火器及彈藥條例,無牌管有槍械或彈藥. (D2)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendants each pleads guilty to 1 count of Possession of arms without a licence.  The arms concerned for the 1st Defendant are 2 self-loading blank pistols and 1 air gun and that of the 2nd Defendant are 2 air guns.      

2.The Defendants are Vietnamese origin working in Prague, Czechoslovakia.  On 4th February 2010, they took the flight back to Hanoi for Chinese New Year on transit in Hong Kong.  The relevant arms are found by the Hong Kong custom in their respective luggage.  They are in a disassembled state. 

3.Both Defendants has a clear record in Hong Kong.  The 1st Defendant is 22 years old.  He works in a supermarket in Prague.  The 2nd Defendant is 45 years old.  He runs a small restaurant in Prague.  Their family members are also living in Prague.

4.Counsel referred me to some authorities on sentencing similar offences.  Suffice to say is that, there is no tariff for this offence and the appropriate sentence depends on particular facts.

5.In this case, I accept that the relevant arms are purchased in Prague and intended for presents to the Defendants’ relatives in Vietnam.  There has been no intention for unlawful use, whether in Hong Kong or Vietnam, and the offences are committed out of ignorance of Hong Kong law.

6.On this basis, I adopt a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment for both charges and because of their plea of guilty, the sentence is reduced to 6 months.  I understand that the Defendants are kept in custody for 7 months and this sentence means that they can be immediately released.

 

S. T. Poon

  District Judge

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case