The Queen v Ip Tat-shing And Otheres

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCC90/1971
Judgment Date:17 Mar 1972
DCCC000090/1971 THE QUEEN v. IP TAT-SHING AND OTHERES

DCCC000090/1971

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CASE NO. 90 OF 1971

-----------------

The Queen
against
(1) IP Tat-shing alias YIP Ting-chor
(2) WONG Chi-cheong alias WONG Cheong
(3) WONG Kam-wah (female)

-----------------

Coram: R. O'Connor, District Judge

Date of Judgment: 17 March, 1972.

---------------------------------------------------

EXTRACT FROM JUDGMENT

---------------------------------------------------

X X X

1. Prior to the Theft Ordinance, where the facts left open a charge of either larceny or receiving it was the practice to lay them in the alternative. The position would then arise as to whether to convict of either the tribunal of fact must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to which of them the accused had committed. That is was it sufficient to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed one or the other but as to which be only on the position of saying which the more probable.

2. In R. v. Langmead (Leigh & Cave Reports 427)

3. When faced with this problem, Pollock C.B. said if there is other evidence consistent with either the accused having stolen himself or with his having received the goods knowing them to be stolen, then it will be for the jury to say which to them seems to be the more probable solution. A strong court of five other judges agreed. Incidentally, Byles J. said that where there was a burglary and men and women found in recent possession, juries almost universally found the women guilty only of receiving "the consideration of her sex inclining their minds to the belief that she did not take any part in the burglary".

4. In The People (AG) v. Mulcahy & Carney 87 Irish L.T.R.137 the appeal court accepted that to convict of receiving someone other than the receiver must be shown to have stolen the goods but applied the dictum of Fitzgerald B., in

5. R. v. McMahon 13 Cox C.C. 275

that "if there was a rational hypothesis that this was so all the judge has to do is to leave it to the jury".

6. In Minister for Industry & Commerce v. Pim 1966 Irish

7. Reports 154 noted 1967 Journal Criminal Law 278

8. Davitt P., obiter said that where a person is in possession of recently stolen goods and it is clear he either stole them or received...

To continue reading

Request your trial