HKSAR v. Chang Hok Cheung, Ricky

DCCC1146/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1146 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of ammunition without a licence. The offence was committed on 25 June 2010 at premises in Tin Shui Wai, New Territories.

2.The ammunition referred to is a projectile cartridge, about 554,800 copper cartridge cases and 86,500 Remington cartridge cases. 

3.The police conducted a search at the premises concerned, which is a scrap metal yard situated in Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long.  They came across 27 recycle bags, 12 barrels, four cartons and an iron bowl of assorted empty cartridge cases inside the yard.  The business registration certificates for three different companies were found in the premises and a company search revealed that the defendant was the registered owner of the three premises.

4.The items seized were forensically examined.  The cartridge which was recovered was found to be a 76 millimetre calibre spent cartridge with no explosive, and the other items were found to be five cartridges.  They could be reverted to live ammunition by performing the reloading procedure.

5.On weighing and calculation, the average weight of the examined Remington cartridge cases is 8 grammes.  The total weight of the seized Remington cartridge cases is 692 kilogrammes, which is equivalent to about 86,500 pieces.  The average weight of the heaviest type of copper cartridge examined was 58 grammes, the total weight of the seized copper cartridges is 32,000 kilogrammes, hence the total number of seized copper cartridge cases is about 554,000 pieces.  The defendant said that he had imported them from overseas. 

6.The defendant is 46 years of age and has a clear record.  He was born in Hong Kong and educated to Form 5 level.  He is single and he lives with his parents and younger sister in the New Territories.  It was submitted by the defence that this was a technical breach of the law and there was no intention that these items would ever be used as cartridges again, as live ammunition again.

7.I am told that the recycle businesses does not belong to the defendant, it is operated by a Chinese businessman and the defendant was made a director in September 2008.  The defendant is an employee of the company earning some $9,000 per month and does administration and accounting work. 

8.The items, the subject of the charge, were imported from overseas in the year 2009-2010 in three batches.  What was intended was that when a certain quantity had been reached that they would be broken down into metal chips and exported to China. 

9.I am told that the reason for the delay was that the machinery used to carry out this task is extremely noisy and is only used when the quantities are sufficiently large.  I am told by the defence counsel that the defendant had no idea that the articles were prohibited.  There were all around the recycle site and there was no attempt to conceal them in any way.       

10.The defendant was arrested in June 2010, almost 2 years ago, and he has had this hanging over his head since his arrest.  I have been handed a medical certificate stating that the defendant has been suffering from insomnia and depression and has been treated medically for those conditions. 

11.On a previous occasion the prosecution submitted some authorities to the court but they all involved, at least to some extent, involved live ammunition.  The only case they can draw to my attention of a similar nature was a Tuen Mun case in 2007 where the defendant was found in possession of two tons of empty bullets.  This was in a recycle waste collection depot.  The defendant was fined $30,000 on that occasion.       

12.I have considered all the factors brought before the court and I have decided to impose a fine in this case.  The defendant will be fined $50,000.