Wong Kam v. The Queen
|
CACC000727/1977
Coram: Morley-John, J. Date of Judgment: 16th August, 1977. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was found guilty of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance. The weapon in question was a triangular scraper with sharp edges and a very fine point. 2. The Crown's evidence was that two police officers were on patrol in Sha Tin Tau New Village. That they saw the appellant sitting by the road side outside what turned out to be his own hut. The first police officer described the appellant as a suspicious male person and the second police officer referred to him as a suspected person. However neither witness elaborated as to why the appellant was considered a suspicious male person or a suspected person. However without more ado the two police officers searched the appellant and according to them the triangular scraper was found wrapped in paper tucked into the waist band of the appellant's trousers. The first police officer said that he asked the appellant for what purpose he had this scraper and stated that the appellant replied that he had it because somebody had bullied his wife. The second police officer said that the appellant said that his wife had been badly bullied by someone and he carried it to "fight for life", to protect his wife. 3. The appellant's evidence was that the scraper was one of the tools of his trade as he was construction worker and had been using the scraper to try to repair his steel measuring tape. He denied that the scraper had been found tucked into his waist band. 4. The learned magistrate rejected the appellant's story and stated that he believed the evidence of the police officers as to what they said the appellant told them i.e. that he carried the weapon to protect his wife. If the learned magistrate had stopped there and indicated that he didn't believe the reason given by the accused was true then there would have been no valid ground of appeal in this case. However the learned magistrate went on to indicate that he also accepted what the appellant said to the police officers as true because he stated that what the appellant told the police officers indicated "that he carried the article as a weapon". 5. Unfortunately nobody drew the attention of the learned magistrate to the case of Evans v. Hughes 1972 3 All E.R. 412. In that case the accused person was found to have a weapon in his possession and although the reason for his possession was defensive the court held that the weapon was nevertheless offensive. However, as the court was satisfied that the accused carried the offensive weapon for his own self defence as he had been set upon by three men about 7 days before and wanted to be prepared if he was attacked again, the court dismissed the charge as the accused had a reasonable excuse for having such offensive weapon with him. 6. In this case the learned magistrate believed the evidence of the police officers and believed that the reason that the accused carried this weapon was for the protection of his wife. I am satisfied that the principles considered in the case of Evans and Hughes should apply and the appeal is allowed accordingly and the appellant is discharged.
Representation: Jimmy Kwong, instructed by (Edmund Cheung & Co.) for appellant. G. Alderdice for Crown/respondent. |