COURT: Ho Mang-keung, I have considered everything said on your behalf.
You have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to four charges, and have been committed to the High Court for sentencing on those charges.
Charge 1 is of possession of ammunition without a licence, contrary to s.13(1) and (2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance. The offence under this charge was committed on 26 September 2007 at Unit L on the Ground Floor of International Industrial Centre, Nos 2-8 Kwei Tei Street, Fo Tan in Shatin. The offences charged under Charges 2 and 3 were also committed at those premises and on that date. The offence charged under Charge 4 was committed at Unit K on the same floor of that building on 3 November of that year.
Charge 2 is of possession of unmarked plastic explosive, contrary to s.58B(1) of the Crimes Ordinance.
Charge 3 is of possession of explosive substances, contrary to s.55(1) of that Ordinance.
Charge 4 is, like Charge 1, of possession of ammunition without a licence.
The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 1 is particularised as “approximately 38,441 rounds of ammunition in various calibres”.
The unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge 2 is particularised as “one block of composition 4 plastic explosive”.
The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 is particularised as “3 binary explosive sticks, 37 detonators, 23 fuse igniters, 3 reels of detonating cord and 3 reels of safety fuse”.
The ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 4 is particularised as “approximately 232,235 rounds of ammunition in various calibre and one tube from a M136 AT4 anti-tank weapon”.
There is an Amended Summary of Facts which you have admitted.
The Amended Summary of Facts begins with background to this case, as to which this is said:
“1. The Defendant, Ho Mang-keung Joseph (aged 57) was at all material times, a director of Joe's Paradise Ltd. and operated his business from premises situated at Unit L, Ground Floor, International Industrial Centre, Kwei Tei Street, Fo Tan, Shatin ('Unit L'). He was a licensed arms dealer and held 2 licences to possess arms and ammunition. One licence was issued to the Defendant in his capacity as the Licensee and Responsible Officer of the Paradise Practical Shooting Club. The address of the Club was at Unit L. The second licence was an individual license which permitted him to possess arms and ammunition at the armoury of Joe's Paradise Ltd. at Unit L. The Defendant also held 4 Dangerous Goods Licences issued by the Commissioner of Mines, which allowed him to store a maximum of 80,000 rounds of ammunition at 4 mode B stores at Unit L. He was the tenant of Unit L.
2.In September 2007, the Police Licensing Office (PLO) was notified that the Defendant had been detained by officers of the Mainland Public Security Bureau on the 15.8.2007 at Huanggang, Shenzhen for a firearms related offence. It was then discovered from enquiries made by the Police with the Mines Division of the Civil Engineering and Development Department that the Defendant had failed to renew his 4 Dangerous Goods Licences which expired on 4.9.2007.
3.As the Defendant was deemed unable to exercise proper care and control over the arms and ammunition under licenses issued to him, Officers of the PLO together with officers attached to the Miscellaneous Enquiries Sub-Unit of Shatin Division (MESU STDIV), Police Senior Force Armourer and Officers from the Mines Division of the of the Civil Engineering and Development Department executed a search warrant to take possession of the licensed firearms and ammunition from the armoury of Joe’s Paradise Limited at Unit L on the 23.9.2007.”
Next, the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the discovery upon search of the ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive, explosive substances and ammunition the subject-matter of Charges 1 to 4 respectively.
Then comes paragraph 8 of the Amended Summary of Facts which reads:
“8. In relation to the ammunition discovered at Unit L on the 26.9.2007 (Charge 1), 2,110 rounds were examined by Police Forensic Firearms Examiner from samples provided by DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the following:
i. 1,750 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre;
ii. 100 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
iii.150 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
iv. 40 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
v. 20 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre; and
vi. 50 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre.”
Paragraph 9 of the Amended Summary of Facts deals with the unmarked plastic explosive the subject-matter of Charge 2. This paragraph concludes by stating that this explosive “is considered a powerful military high explosive”.
The explosive substances the subject-matter of Charge 3 are dealt with in paragraphs 10-21 of the Amended Summary of Facts. I will read out the last of those paragraphs, namely paragraph21, which reads:
“21. PW18 further said that the box of explosives, if set off by any means, would have caused the following damage:-
(a) Blast effects that would likely have caused death out to approximately 5 metres radius;
(b)Serious injury from approximately 5-10 metres;
(c) Lesser injuries such as ear damage from approximately 10-15 metres; and
(d) Disorientation from approximately15-20 metres.”
Paragraphs 22-26 deal with the ammunition the subject-matter of Charge 4. These paragraphs read as follows:
“22. The ammunition seized at Unit K consisted of the following:-
(a) Approximately 232,235 rounds of ammunition in various calibre; and
(b) One tube from an M136 AT4 anti-tank weapon.
23. In relation to 22(a) above, 27,000 rounds were examined by Police Forensic Firearms Examiners and found to consist of the following:
(a) 10,500 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre;
(b) 3,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
(c) 2,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.357 inch calibre;
(d) 4,500 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre; and
(e) 7,000 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre.
24. In addition 9,488 rounds were subsequently examined by Police Forensic Firearms Examiners from samples provided by DSPC 48426 (PW28) and found to consist of the following:
i. 300 rounds of ammunition in 0.22 inch calibre;
ii. 110 rounds of ammunition in 0.30 inch calibre;
iii.80 rounds of ammunition in 0.303 inch calibre;
iv. 60 rounds of ammunition in 0.308 inch calibre;
v. 151 rounds of ammunition in 0.32 inch calibre;
vi. 200 rounds of ammunition in 0.375 inch calibre;
vii.884 rounds of ammunition in 0.38 inch calibre;
viii.400 rounds of ammunition in 0.40 inch calibre;
ix. 450 rounds of ammunition in 0.44 inch calibre;
x. 2,050 rounds of ammunition in 0.45 inch calibre;
xi. 52 rounds of ammunition in 0.50 inch calibre;
xii. 50 rounds of ammunition in 5.45 mm calibre;
xiii. 920 rounds of ammunition in 5.56 mm calibre;
xiv.675 rounds of ammunition in 7.62 mm calibre;
xv. 225 rounds of ammunition in 8 mm calibre;
xvi.2,095 rounds of ammunition in 9 mm calibre;
xvii. 761 rounds of ammunition in 12 Gauge calibre; and
xviii. 25 rounds of ammunition in 410 Gauge calibre.
25. The tube from an M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon was examined by Bomb Disposal Officer Alick Bryce McWhirter (PW19) who confirmed that it had been fired and is free from explosives. The tube is green in colour, empty and there was no name or stock number visible. Instructions for firing were on a label stuck to the outside in English. The length of the tube was approximately 1,000 mm. The diameter of the tube was approximately 84 mm. The rear of the tube showed signs of heat suggesting that it had been fired. The appearance is consistent with an M136 AT4 light anti-tank weapon launcher which had been fired.
26. The tube from the M136 of AT4 anti-tank weapon satisfies the definition of ‘ammunition’ under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238.”
The maximum penalty for each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
It is not even suggested, let alone proved, that you were going to use or deliberately let anybody use any of the ammunition, unmarked plastic explosive or explosive substances concerned to commit any crime. But there is a very good and very important reason why the law prohibits or regulates the possession of such things. They are highly dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. Your counsel has spoken of the security arrangements in place. I take that into account of course, as I do everything which he said. There is, however, no getting away from the fact that this is a serious case.
Of the two ammunition charges, Charge 4 is more serious than Charge 1 since, first of all, far more ammunition is involved and, secondly, the premises concerned in Charge 4 were, unlike the premises concerned in Charge 1, not premises at which you had ever been licensed to possess any ammunition. On the information available from the Admitted Facts, It is difficult to draw any confident distinction between the two explosive charges. I will treat them as equally serious and of the same seriousness as the more serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 4.
For the less serious ammunition charge, namely Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 4 years. For each of the other three charges, I adopt a starting point of 6 years. On each charge I give you a one-third discount for your guilty plea. So the sentence on Charge 1 is 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment, while the sentence on each of the other charges is 4 years’ imprisonment.