Jump to content

Page:HKSAR v. Ng Gordon Ching-hang and others (2024, HKCFI).pdf/7

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

- 7 -

7. In AG’s Reference Nos.48 and 49 of 2010[1], two defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute prohibited firearms and ammunition contrary to s.51A of the Firearms Act, which also carries a minimum 5 years sentence. Hughes L.J. stated:

“10. The legislative framework within which the judge had to operate presented him with some challenge. The maximum sentence effectively was 10 years. By s.51A of the Firearms Act 1968 the possession of a prohibited weapon now carries a minimum sentence of five years from which no further allowance for a plea of guilty can be made. It follows that if someone is convicted of possessing a prohibited weapon, effectively the sentencing range available to the judge is limited to seven-and-a-half years to 10. Part of the question which we have had to address in this case is to what extent s.51A is relevant to the present sentencing exercise.

11. For the Attorney General Miss Whitehouse submits that although s.51A does not apply directly to the offence of conspiracy and although the weapons in this case had not yet achieved the status of prohibited weapons so that it could not apply, nevertheless, it is such an important indication of Parliamentary intent that a sentencing judge should regard a five-year sentence, even after a plea of guilty, as the minimum in a case of this kind.

12. We think that goes too far. If s.51A had been intended to apply offences of attempt, which effectively this was, or conspiracy then that could easily have been done and it has not been. On the other hand, we have no doubt whatever, just as the Court in Attorney General’s Reference (No.43 of 2009) had no doubt whatever, that the Parliamentary indication of public concern, which is reflected in s.51A, has a considerable impact on sentences which need to be imposed for cases of this kind.”

8. On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that when the law was amended in 1983 to provide for the same penalty for conspiracy, the legislative intent showed clearly that the purpose was to allow the Court to impose the same punishment in respect of attempts, conspiracies


  1. [2011] 1 Cr App R (S)