R v Wang


R v Wang in the criminal law of England and Wales is the binding precedent, from the highest court, 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.

Background

Mr Cheong Wang was a Chinese political asylum-seeker and a Buddhist, of the Shaolin Sect. On the he was waiting for a train at Clacton-on-Sea railway station when his bag was stolen. He searched and found a thief with the bag, whom he attempted to "detain", and from whom he recovered it. From this, he drew 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 found. For all these, he was indicted on two counts, of having an article with a blade or point in a public place, contrary to Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Wang was tried in the Crown Court at Chelmsford, also in Essex, before His Honour Judge Pearson, Circuit Judge, with a jury. Upon the, Wang was convicted, upon that Circuit Judge's direction of guilt to the Jury, of the two offences, and he was on the conditionally discharged, for a period of 12 months. Forfeiture orders were also made 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 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 ... 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 this topic 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.