Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300106 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial
Committee
of
the
Privy
Council
WHAT
IS
"AMMUNITION"?
LiewSai Wah
u.
Public
Prosecutor
THE appellant in Liew Sai Wah
u,
Public
Prosecutor
(1968, 3W.L.R.
385) was sentenced to death, following his conviction of
having in his possession in a security area, contrary to the Internal
Security Act 1960, "ammunition, to wit six hand grenades".
The
evidence to support this charge was that he
had
been stopped by the
police, who discovered
that
he was carrying a bag containing six
hand
grenade bodies which lacked levers, safety pins, detonators
and
base plugs. As there was no evidence
that
these devices were
filled with an explosive, the appellant contended
that
they did not
come within the definition
of
"ammunition"
in
S.2
of the Act.
There, ammunition is defined as ammunition for any firearm or as
"grenades, bombs
and
other like missiles whether capable of use
with such a firearm or not".
The
trial
judge
held against this con-
tention as the definition also included ammunition designed to
contain any noxious thing.
The
gist of the appellant's case on appeal
was that, even so, the definition is confined to grenades designed to
contain a noxious thing
and
does not extend so as to cover parts of
grenades such as grenade bodies.
The
Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council reversed this local Courts' decision, applying the
principle
that
apenal statute must be strictly construed, so that the
person to be penalised must be given the benefit of any doubt: see
per
Lord Simonds in L.N.E. Ry. v.
Berriman
(1946, A.C. 278,
313)-
"a
man
is not to be
put
in peril upon an ambiguity".
The
Board
pointed out
that
the definitions of both "explosive"
and
of "fire-
arm"
in the Act expressly included parts, so that,
if
the draftsman
had
intended the word
"ammunition"
also to include parts, it
would seem probable
that
he would have expressly so stated.
The
Board therefore allowed the appeal, with the paradoxical result
that, although the
death
penalty may be imposed for possession of
grenades which are harmless because they are not filled, the pos-
session
of
part
of a grenade which is filled does not constitute the
offence
of
possessing
"ammunition".
46
To continue reading
Request your trial