JUDGMENT

Sutherland J:

When this appeal came on for hearing Miss. Lim appeared for the appellant and Mr. JP Kirby, DPP for the respondent.

The charge against the accused was:

That you on 10 November 1956 at about 1.30 a.m. at Batu Lane, Kuala Lumpur were found loitering in a public place with intent to commit a seizable and nonbailable offence and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 28 (k) Minor Offences Ordinance, 1955.

At the outset Mr. Kirby stated that he could only support the conviction if the words "suspected person or reputed thief" in s. 28(k) of the Ordinance operated as a defence, instead of being an ingredient of the offence. He continued that it does seem from the cases that it is essential to prove that the accused is a suspected person or reputed thief as part of the evidence, and that this forms part of the offence. He cited Fairbairn's 33 Cr App R 179 case, in which in order to prove that the appellant came within the category of a suspected person evidence of a previous conviction of the appellant was properly admitted. He also cited Harris ' case, which appeared to indicate that evidence is necessary to prove that an accused is a "su