刑事檢控科各律師/高級律 - Department of Justice

32
the gun was inoperative. The Appellant told the guard that the gun
was for self-defence.
The Appellant’s case at trial was that he was a Taiwanese
who owned a factory in Dongguan, which employed 3,000
workers and had an annual turnover of US$40 million. His family
lived in Taiwan.
The Appellant testified that on the morning of 13 June at
about 9 am, he packed his baggage (ex P1). He did not pack
exhibits P2 and P3, and had no knowledge of them. He then went
to his office in the Administration Building, and put his bag next
to the desk in his office. On that day he left the office on two
occasions, and it was unattended and unlocked. About 20 people
would have had access to his office regularly. There were four
entrances to the office. On 12 June he had told senior staff he
would leave for Taiwan the following day. At 3 pm he asked his
assistant Zhu Zhong (DW2) to place his baggage in the boot of his
car. When he crossed the border at 5.50 pm, neither the baggage
nor the car was inspected. He produced his Hong Kong identity
card, which was kept in his car.
The Appellant denied having told PW1 that the gun was for
self-defence. He thought someone might bear a grudge against
him as he had recently fired some staff. In April 2003, 700 to 800
workers had taken part in a strike. His deputy manager had told
him that one staff member had warned the general managers and
managers to be careful as they might get killed. He would pick up
his family personally at the airport because he was concerned
about their safety.
DW2 gave evidence that he had never seen the Appellant
with a gun. On 15 June, the Appellant asked him to investigate
the incident. Two employees were suspected but no report was
made to the Mainland police as the incident did not occur in the
Mainland.
The magistrate rejected the explanation of the Appellant. He
was sure he had said something to PW1 at the airport, and that the
Appellant was lying when he denied this. His evidence as to what
occurred at this juncture was vague and he gave different versions.
The Appellant was vague as to the packing of the hand baggage in
which the gun was found. The magistrate drew the irresistible
inference that the Appellant was aware that the gun was in his
baggage.
Held :
On appeal