1. This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228) regarding the offence of possession of an instrument fit for unlawful purposes. Section 17 reads: “Any person who has in his possession any wrist restraint or other instrument or article manufactured for the purpose of physically restraining a person, any handcuffs or thumbcuffs, any offensive weapon, or any crowbar, picklock, skeleton-key or other instrument fit for unlawful purposes, with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose, shall be liable to a fine at level 2 or to imprisonment for 2 years.” 2. The instrument in question was a bag containing 48 six-inch plastic cable ties, which were found in the Appellant’s backpack when he was intercepted by the police within the vicinity of an unauthorised assembly that had been dispersed. 3. At trial, the Magistrate held that the “unlawful purposes” for which an instrument is fit must be related to physically restraining or injuring a person, or housebreaking. He also held that the “unlawful purpose” for which a defendant intended to use the offending instrument could be any unlawful purpose. The Magistrate found that the cable ties could be easily linked together to physically restrain a person. He further found that the Appellant had intended to use the cable ties to bind detached metal railings or other objects on the road to form barricades or large structures for use in armed confrontations, fights, inflicting injuries or obstructing or blocking the road or traffic. Therefore, the Appellant was convicted. 4. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence. It held that the “unlawful purposes” for which an instrument is fit and the “unlawful purpose” for which a defendant intends to use that instrument are not restricted to any specific purposes. Noting that section 17 had undergone amendments, the Court of Appeal departed from previous case law, which had applied the ejusdem generis rule, a general rule of statutory interpretation, to limit “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” to instruments fit for gaining unlawful access. Instead, it placed emphasis on the subsequent Chinese text of the section. 5. In the present appeal, the key issue before this Court is the scope of the phrases “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” and “with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose” under section 17. “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” 6. Whilst the task of the Court in the present appeal is to construe section 17 in its modern form, the Court noted thatthe evolution of the section and earlier case law form an important part of the context in which the section should be construed. The Court first considered the original scope of section 17 when it was first enacted, before considering the effect of the amendments it had since undergone. 7. Originally, section 17 covered two categories only: (1) “spear, bludgeon, or other offensive weapon”; and (2) “crowbar, picklock, skeleton-key, or other instrument fit for unlawful purpose”. The Court noted that the phrase “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” was present in the statutory provision from the very beginning, being the last item in category (2). The scope of this phrase was interpreted by earlier case law as being limited to instruments that are fit for gaining unlawful access. Such an interpretation was made by applying the ejusdem generis rule, whereby wide words (“other instrument fit for unlawful purposes”) associated with more limited words (“crowbar, picklock, skeleton-key”) within the same list of words are taken to be restricted to matters of the same character (i.e. instruments that are fit for gaining unlawful access), provided a common character can be identified. 8. In 1984, a new category covering “any wrist restraint or other instrument or article manufactured for the purpose of physically restraining a person, any handcuffs or thumbcuffs” was added to the section. The Court noted that the new category consisted of items manufactured for physical restraint which fell within a category of their own. Such an addition by the legislature was premised on the interpretation by earlier case law that “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” did not cover just any instrument fit for any unlawful purposes, but only an instrument fit for gaining unlawful access. 9. The authenticated Chinese text of section 17 came into being in 1993 as a translation of the original English text. The Court noted that the Chinese translation does not faithfully follow the original English text in that it has re-grouped the articles and instruments into two categories.[1] Handcuffs, thumbcuffs, offensive weapon, crowbar, picklock, skeleton-key and “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” are all grouped together as one single category. Such a grouping leaves no room for the application of the ejusdem generis rule, as the articles and instruments so grouped together simply do not share a common character. 10.The Court held that the true construction of section 17 was not altered by the introduction of the translation as the Chinese text. One could not ascribe to the legislature an intention to effect any change in meaning of the original English text merely by reason of the Chinese translation. 11.Therefore, guided by the original English text, the Court held that the ejusdem generis rule continued to apply to limit “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” to instruments fit for gaining unlawful access. 12.The Court held that an unrestricted construction of “other instrument fit for unlawful purposes” would do violence to the language when read ejusdem generis and render the spelling out of all the specific articles or instruments in the section redundant. Furthermore, such a construction would render the scope of section 17 extremely wide and effectively turn the section into a thought crime. This would run contrary to the legislative history of the section, and the restrained, incremental approach of the legislature when amending the section in the past. “with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose” 13.The Court held that “any unlawful purpose” should accordingly be confined with reference to the three categories of articles or instruments set out in section 17. For an instrument or article falling within the restraint category, there must be an intent to use it for restraining a person. For an offensive weapon, the defendant must intend to use it to inflict physical injury on another person, or intend to use it to threaten physical harm to another. For an instrument or article falling within the unlawful access category, the intention must be to use it for obtaining unlawful access. Application of section 17 to the present case 14.The Court held that the 48 six-inch plastic cable ties fall outside section 17. The six-inch cable ties do not fall within the restraint category and were simply not manufactured for the purpose of physically restraining a person. They are not offensive weapons nor instruments fit for gaining unlawful access. Therefore, the Appellant should not have been convicted under that section. Disposition 15.Accordingly, the Court unanimously allowed the appeal. [1] A literal translation of the Chinese text back into English can be found in paragraph 43 of the Judgment.