Court found a defendant not guilty of possession of firearms and ammunition

香港特別行政區 訴 施朗

9 October 2025

Deputy District Judge Winnie Lau found a 30-year-old defendant not guilty of possession of firearms and ammunition.

In June 2020, the police raided the Defendant’s home where the followings were found: (i) an exhibit bearing the appearance of a Glock 17 pistol with a magazine allegedly found inside (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥”); (ii) an exhibit bearing the appearance of an AR 15 rifle with a muzzle device at the muzzle end (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞”); (iii) three stand-alone magazines; and (iv) 53 cartridge cases. It was an agreed fact that the Defendant did not possess any firearms licence. In two video-recorded interviews (“𝐕𝐑𝐈”), the Defendant explained to the police that the exhibits were only toy/dummy guns and they did not have the function to discharge missiles/bullets. The Defendant is an “airsoft/toy gun fanatic” and possessed the exhibits (together with many other toy guns not seized by the police) for collection purposes.

In finding the Defendant not guilty, the Judge found that the evidence of the Defendant had not been undermined under cross-examination and his evidence in the VRIs and in the witness box was true. The Judge could not rule out the possibility that the Defendant did not know the true nature of the exhibits, being regulated by the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (“𝐅𝐀𝐎”). The Judge further noted that the Pistol and the Rifle did not have any firing function, nor were the police able to find any suitable tool(s) and/or raw material(s) for reactivating the Pistol and/or the Rifle. Further, the Judge found the expert report on the functionality of the Magazines unreliable as the expert did not set out the steps and procedures conducted to test their functionality, which was inconsistent with the expert reports for other exhibits. Finally, the Judge was persuaded that there was a real possibility that the Defendant used the cartridges for personal and/or household adornment purposes and, hence, they fall under the exception provision of the FAO.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the trial which lasted for 12 days, spanning from November 2024 to October 2025.