21 Jul 1977
The Full Court's two‑category construction of s.17 is correct; context and ejusdem generis restrict 'other instrument' to instruments commonly used in breaking offences, and absent evidence that hand‑cuffs were fit for such offences they do not fall within s.17. Therefore the conviction under s.17 cannot stand.
5 Jun 1976
The magistrate misdirected himself by treating mere possession as constituting the offence; because there was no finding or proof of the required present intention to use the instruments for forgery and the Crown could not support the conviction, the conviction must be set aside in accordance with the precedent requiring proof of present intention.
11 Jun 1968
Section 17 is best construed as contemplating two categories (any spear, bludgeon or other offensive weapon; and any crowbar, picklock, skeleton-key or other instrument fit for unlawful purposes) with the alternatives 'with intent to use' or 'is unable to give a satisfactory account' applying to both categories; where the prosecution concedes inability to prove intent and the article is not manifestly incriminatory, a charge that assumes intent is defective. On the facts, the prosecution could not prove intent and the charge did not disclose an offence, so the acquittal was rightly entered an…