The Queen v. Liu Yuk-shing
Read the full judgment text of CACC 373/1983 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. LIU Yuk-shing appeals against his conviction for possession of an offensive weapon; and against the training centre order made against him for possession of a dangerous drug, to which latter charge he pleaded guilty.
|
CACC000373/1983 [Section 17 of Summary Offences Ordinance should be used with care.]
BETWEEN:
Coram: Roberts, C.J. Date: 6th May, 1983. ------------------ JUDGMENT ------------------ 1. LIU Yuk-shing appeals against his conviction for possession of an offensive weapon; and against the training centre order made against him for possession of a dangerous drug, to which latter charge he pleaded guilty. 2. The charge of possession of an offensive weapon was brought under section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, which makes it an offence for a person to have in his possession any offensive weapon, with intent to use it for an unlawful purpose or being unable to give a satisfactory account of its possession. 3. On the 7th June, in the early hours of the morning, a party of police officers went to 243 Cheung Sha Wan Road, apparently as a result of a report that somebody was trying to enter those premises. The police party entered them and went to the first floor, where they fund the appellant and two other men in a partitioned room. When the premises were searched, seven packets of cannabis were found and the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of these drugs. 4. In the lower bunk in the partitioned room, which was occupied by the appellant, a kitchen knife, about 12 inches long, was found lying on the top of the bunk and not concealed. 5. The appellant, unfortunately for him, chose not to give evidence in his own defence at the trial. However, I have no doubt that it must have been obvious to the magistrate, from the manner of cross-examination conducted by the appellant, and from the evidence given by a witness called by him, that his defence was that this was an ordinary kitchen implement which had been in use for the preparation of food in the premises for some time. 6. Various pieces of evidence support this explanation. It was admitted by two of the prosecution witnesses that this was the only knife found on the premises. Evidence was given by the mother of the third defendant that she had left the knife in the premises, to be used for domestic purposes, when she moved away. The appellant called a witness, a girlfriend of his, who said that she had been three times to that address to have a meal, that she had herself prepared the food there and had used the knife to do so. 7. Section 17 of the summary Offences Ordinance should be used with great discretion, where articles which are capable of being used for innocent purposes, like this knife, are found inside domestic premises, without any suspicious circumstances surrounding its position or its finding. 8. I am reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact of an experienced magistrate, who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. I am, nevertheless, satisfied that in this case the conviction was clearly against the weight of the evidence, though I should note that the appellant is partly the author of his own misfortune by making the mistake of not giving evidence on his own behalf at his trial. 9. The appeal against conviction for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon therefore succeeds and the conviction on that charge is quashed. 10. Having heard the appellant's submissions as to sentence, however, I am satisfied that the training centre order was a proper one and dismiss the appeal against sentence Representation: G. Alderdice, D.P.C.C. for Respondent Appellant in person. |