THE QUEEN v. WONG HUNG TAT

CACC000089/1989

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	No 89 of 1989
	(Criminal)

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	WONG HUNG TAT	Applicant

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

Coram: Hon Yang, CJ, Kempster & Power, JJA

Date of hearing: 9 June 1989

Date of judgment: 9 June 1989

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

Kempster, JA :

1. On 12 January of this year in the District Court Wong Hung Tat was convicted on charges of possessing at Smith & Wesson revolver and ammunition without licence at Pak Tai Street in Kowloon on 16 August 1988 contrary to the provision of section 13(1) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap 238).

2. By notice given on 17 February Wong Hung Tat made application for leave to appeal against those convictions. This morning he abandoned that application which is accordingly dismissed. By a further notice, given on 23 February, Wong Hung Tat sought leave to appeal against the sentence of four and a half years imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, passed on him by Judge Wally Yeung on 26 January. That application he pursues.

3. The revolver, loaded with five rounds of ammunition, had been found in the cubicle at Pak Tai Street, Kowloon, of which the applicant was a tenant, by chance because the police officers who effected entry were searching for other goods. With regard to the weapon, which was found wrapped in a piece of clothing and in a bag, the applicant said, as was recorded in a written statement shortly afterwards :

"The gun is mine .... I bought it from a friend for HK$5,000 .... for defence purposes."

He claimed to operate a gambling stall.

4. In relation to the sentences passed the applicant contends that four and a half years was "too heavy" for one of his age, twenty-two years, who was also naive; a characteristic difficult to reconcile with the proprietorship of a gambling stall. He also says that he is called upon to support aged parents and, into the bargain, is minded to get married.

5. The trial judge took commendable care in relation to sentence. Having secured a, quite favourable, report from a probation officer the judge also took into account the fact that the weapon had not, apparently, been used in furtherance of any crime. He could not have allowed any discount for a plea of "guilty".

6. Since the maximum sentence which may be passed on conviction for an offence of this nature is fourteen years' imprisonment and a fine of HK$100,000 we regard the sentences passed upon the applicant as lenient. He is fortunate that, because he abandoned his application for leave to appeal against conviction, we say only that his application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Representation:

Applicant in person

G J Lugar-Mawson for Crown/Respondent