THE QUEEN v. CHENG YICH KWONG AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 682 OF 1986

BETWEEN

____________________________

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

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants were charged that being watchmen they were asleep on duty.

2. The appellants' argument is that at the time the Crown closed its case, no evidence had been adduced as to the duties or functions of the appellants and that, therefore, a necessary ingredient of the charge had not been made out and that the learned magistrate should have held there was no case to answer.

3. In my view there was sufficient evidence adduced by the Crown from which the learned magistrate could have determined or at least drawn the irresistible. inference that the appellants were watchmen within the meaning of the Watchmen Ordinance, Cap.299.

4. "Watchman" in the Watchmen Ordinance reads :

"includes every person, other than persons exempted under the provisions of section 3, who is employed ashore or afloat to protect any property or to prevent crime or to maintain order in any places "

5. The Crown's evidence, inter alia, was that the two appellants were seen in a security room of a building wearing security uniforms - one appellant described himself as a senior caretaker and the other as a supervisor caretaker.

6. The word "caretaker" is not a term of art - it is a word commonly used in Hong Kong and I have no doubt whatever that one of the duties of caretakers is to protect the building of which they have charge and, in my view, also probably to take such steps as to prevent crime in their buildings. In the circumstances the learned magistrate was entitled to hold that there was a case to answer and the appeal is dismissed.