刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

31
Viscount Kilmuir LC saying at p 334 of the report:
‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation, and
‘grievous’ means no more and no less than
‘really serious’.
(2) In Liu Man-kuen, the court was considering a case with facts
similar to these when a victim was told to place her hands on an
ironing board and a hot iron was pressed down the back of both
hands resulting in a secondary degree scaled wound of the dorsum
of each hand. The court concluded that the injury involved
grievous bodily harm, and said:
It is a question of fact in each case. And whereas
common sense tells one that some injuries will always
be considered as amounting to grievous bodily harm
and some, obviously minor ones, will not, in the vast
majority of cases it is left to the tribunal, properly
directed, to come to its own conclusion.
(3) The magistrate in the instant appeal came to the same
conclusion as in Liu Man-kuen, and it could not be said that was a
wrong decision.
Result - Appeal dismissed.
MA 202/2004
Fung DJ
(21.5.2004)
*Cheung Wai-sun
& Yam Ho
#A Macrae SC
CHOU
Shih-bin
Possession of arms and ammunition/Defence that items
planted in bag/Magistrate disbelieving defendant and drawing
irresistible inference of guilt/No basis for appellate court to
intervene on basis of lurking doubt/Magistrate overlooking
effect of presumption and setting himself a higher standard
管 有 槍 械 及 彈 藥 – 辯 稱 物 品 遭 人 栽 藏 袋 中 – 裁 判
官 不 相 信 被 告 人 並 作 出 被 告 人 有 罪 的 不 可 抗 拒 推
論 – 上 訴 法 庭 沒 理 由 以 潛 在 疑 點 為 基 礎 而 干 預 –
裁 判 官 忽 視 推 定 的 影 響 並 自 行 設 定 較 高 的 標 準
The Appellant was convicted after trial of an offence of
possession of arms and ammunition without a licence, contrary to
s 13 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap 238.
The prosecution case was that at about 5.50 pm on 13 June
2003, the Appellant entered Hong Kong from the Mainland at Lok
Ma Chau. At 7.15 pm, at Hong Kong Airport, where he was to fly
to Taiwan, he presented his hand-carry baggage (ex P1) for X-ray
screening. The security guard found an anti-riot gun of Chinese
origin (ex P2) and a cartridge with five chambers (ex P3). It was
admitted that ex P2 was a firearm, under Cap 238, and that ex P3
was ammunition. The battery of the gun was not functioning and