R. v. Wang, (2005) 332 N.R. 49 (HL)

• Case Date: February 10, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 332 N.R. 49 (HL)

R. v. Wang (2005), 332 N.R. 49 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. FE.016

Regina (respondent) v. Wang (appellant)

([2005] UKHL 9)

Indexed As: R. v. Wang

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Carswell

February 10, 2005.

Summary:

Wang was indicted on two counts of hav­ing an article with a blade or point in a public place, contrary to s. 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The counts re­lated to a curved martial arts sword and a small Ghurkha style knife. Wang testified that he was a Buddhist and that he used the weapons in the practise of Shaolin, a tradi­tional martial art. Wang relied on the de­fences in ss. 139(4) and 139(5)(b) of the Act, asserting that he had the weapons with him for a good reason or for religious rea­sons. The trial judge was of the view that the jury should not, properly directed, find that there was "any conceivable reasonable ex­cuse". The trial judge directed the jury to return guilty verdicts on both counts, which the jury did. Wang appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision report­ed at [2003] EWCA Crim 3228, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge was justified in directing the jury to convict. Wang appealed. The Court of Appeal cer­ti­fied the following question of law of gen­eral public importance: "In what circum­stances, if any, is a judge entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty".

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and quashed Wang's convictions. The court held that there were no circumstances in which a judge was entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 4359.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directed verdict of "guilty" -The House of Lords held that there were no circumstances in which a judge was en­titled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts, discharges and dis­missals - Directed verdicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4359.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stone­house, [1978] A.C. 55 (H.L.), folld. [para. 3].

R. v. Bown, [2003] EWCA Crim 1989; [2004] 1 Cr. App. Rep. 151, refd to. [para. 7].

Woolmington v. Director of Public Pros­e­cutions, [1935] A.C. 462, consd. [para. 9].

Joshua v. R., [1955] A.C. 121 (P.C.), consd. [para. 9].

Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1964] A.C. 763 (H.L.), consd. [para. 10].

R. v. West (1910), 4 Cr. App. Rep. 179, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Beeby (1911), 6 Cr. App. Rep. 138, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hendrick (1921), 15 Cr. App. Rep. 149, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Waters (1963), 47 Cr. App. Rep. 149, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Cook (1963), 48 Cr. App. Rep. 98, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Guttridge, [1973] RTR 135, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Vickers, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 811, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Larkin, [1943] KB 174; 29 Cr. App. Rep. 18, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Eastwood, [1961] Crim. L.R. 414, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Draper, [1962] Crim. L.R. 107, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Comerford, [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1059; 49 Cr. App. Rep. 77, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kelly, [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1050, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ferguson (1970), 54 Cr. App. Rep. 415, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Pico, [1971] Crim. L.R. 599, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Morris, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 228, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Thompson, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 962, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Challinor (1984), 80 Cr. App. Rep. 253, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Gordon (1987), 92 Cr. App. Rep. 50, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Gent (1989), 89 Cr. App. Rep. 247, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Kelleher, [2003] EWCA Crim 3525, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hill and Hall (1988), 89 Cr. App. Rep. 74, refd to. [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales: Report (2001), pp. 173 to 176, paras. 99 to 108 [para. 15].

Devlin, Patrick, Trial By Jury (1956), pp. 78 [para. 3]; 160, 162 [para. 16]; Appen­dix II, p. 194 [para. 8].

Devlin, The Judge and Jury, The Judge (1981), p. 142 [para. 13].

Griew, Article, [1972] Crim. L.R. 204, generally [para. 15].

Griew, Article, [1989] Crim. L.R. 768, generally [para. 15].

McConville, Article, [1973] Crim. L.R. 164, gen­erally [para. 15].

Williams, Glanville, The Proof of Guilt (3rd Ed. 1963), pp. 261, 262 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Agents:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard in London, England, be­fore Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Carswell, of the House of Lords. The following deci­sion of the House of Lords was delivered by the Court on February 10, 2005.