Rigby J:

The appellant in this case was convicted by the Magistrate of assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery, to wit, 100 and 1,000 illegal character lottery, contrary to s. 4(1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, 1953 and sentenced to one month's imprisonment together with a fine of $1,000.

The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, with great fairness, has said that he does not feel that he is able to support this conviction having regard to the authorities of Ang Chwee Keong V. Regina and Sim Ah Seng v. Rex [1951] MLJ 150. In all these cases it has been laid down that the ultimate responsibility of determining whether or not there is a public lottery rests with the Magistrate and he does that, of course, with the assistance of such experts as may be called before him to explain what the lottery is, how it is run, and how the facts adduced and the exhibits produced in the case before him establish in the opinion of the expert the existence of a public lottery. But it is for the Magistrate to form his decision in the light of the evidence given by the expert.

In the present case the expert called before the Court gave a general explanation as to how the 100 and 1,000 illegal character lottery was run. Then, however, turning from the general to the particular, he simply said, in reference to the exhibits produced in the case:

I came to the conclusion that they belong either to an organiser or collector of bets of 100 and 1,000 numbers lottery.

No attempt was made by him to explain in detail the nature of the exhibits found and the grounds on which he based his opinion that those exhibits belonged either to an organiser or collector of bets of 100 and 1,000 numbers lottery. Adopting the words of Spenser Wilkinson J in the case of Ang Chwee Keong V. Regina

It was the duty of the Magistrate in this case to look at these documents and decide for himself, of course with the assistance of the expert, whether or not those documents were accounts, memoranda or records of stakes or wagers relating to a lottery within the meaning of s. 11 of the Ordinance. He appears to me to have relied entirely upon the bare expression of opinion of the expert . . . . .

As Brown A-G CJ Singapore, said in the case of Sim Ah Seng v. Rex [1951] MLJ 150:

But a bare expression of his (the expert's) opinion has no evidential value at all. Unless he gives an explanation which supplies the understanding of the subject which the Court lacks, the Court is in no better position than it was before to determine the question which it is the duty to determine, and if the Court acts upon a bare expression of the expert's opinion the determination of the question becomes that of the expert and not of the Court.

Lastly, I would only quote a passage from the judgment of Thomson J (as he then was) in PP v. Lee Ee Teong [1953] MLJ 244 in which he stated:

I know, and the Magistrate knows, all about the 1,000 character lottery; so for that matter do the majority of the adult inhabitants of this country. There is not the slightest room for doubt that it is a lottery within the meaning of the Common Gaming Houses Enactment. Unfortunately, however, it is not open to any Judge or Magistrate to import his personal knowledge on the point into a criminal trial so as to help out evidence for the prosecution which would otherwise be inadequate to support a conviction.

For these reasons the appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction quashed and the sentence set aside.

I would only add that the evidence upon the record in this case is certainly equally consistent with the defence raised by the appellant that he was not assisting in the carrying on of this illegal lottery but simply a punter on his own behalf. Whilst it is perfectly true that under s. 11 of the Ordinance where a person is found in possession of ten or more lottery tickets or of any account, memorandum or record of stakes or wagers in relation to a lottery a presumption arises against