End date February 10, 2005 | Ruling court House of Lords | |
 | ||
Full case name Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent vs Cheong Wang, Appellant Decided 10 February 2005 (2005-02-10) Citation(s) [2005] 1 WLR 661, [2005] UKHL 9, [2005] 1 All ER 782, [2005] 2 Cr App R 8 Prior action(s) Wang, R. v [2003] EWCA Crim 3228 (Laws LJ, Curtis J, Recorder of Cardiff) Appealed from Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Criminal Division) Judges sitting Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell Judge sittings Thomas Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill | ||
Regina v Wang (2005) is a legal case, in the criminal law in England and Wales, establishing that a judge in England or in Wales is not entitled to direct, or instruct, order or require, a jury to return a verdict of guilty.
Contents
Background
On the 27 February 2002, Mr Cheong Wang, a Chinese political asylum-seerker and a Buddhist, of the Shaolin Sect, was a passenger awaiting at Clacton-on-Sea railway station, in the County of Essex, when his bag became stolen. He conducted a search, and the bag was then found in the possession of a thief, whom he attempted to "detain", and from whom the bag was recovered. From the recovered bag, Wang then produced a curved martial-arts sword, with a sheath. In the ensuring altercation, or disturbance, the local Police was called in, and upon a further search of the bag by the Police a small Ghurkha-style kukri knife was discovered. For all these, Wang was indicted on two counts, of having an article with a blade or point in a public place, contrary to Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33).
Wang was tried in the Crown Court at Chelmsford, also in Essex, before His Honour Judge Pearson, Circuit Judge, with a jury. Upon the 28 August 2002, Wang was convicted, upon the Circuit Judge's direction of the Jury, of the two offences, and he was on the 4 October 2002 conditionally discharged, for a period of 12 months. Forfeiture orders were also issued by the Circuit Judge for the two offending articles.
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was heard before Laws LJ, Curtis J and the Recorder of Cardiff. They dismissed the appeal, concluding that a judge was entitled to direct the jury to convict provided that 'it is plain beyond sensible argument that the material before the jury could not in law suffice to discharge the burden' necessary to satisfy the defence.
Appeal to the House of Lords
Wang duly appealed to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In a unanimous opinion, the appellate committee allowed his appeal and quashed his conviction, concluding that 'there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty' because a 'belief that the jury would probably, and rightly, have convicted does not [enable a trial judge to give a direction to convict] ... when there were matters which could and should have been the subject of their consideration'.
Significance
The judgment settled the law in England and Wales by providing a clear authority in an area of uncertainty. The case caused the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the 1972 conviction of Edward Caley-Knowles to the Court of Appeal. Caley-Knowles's conviction was subsequently quashed based on the authority of Wang.