- 4
which I have referred, the verdict was perverse and he
challenged the inference that the Deceased must have climbed
out of this window and met his death as a result of climbing
out. .This is where we have found great assistance in seeing
the premises and I should have mentioned that very
properly counsel in the court below invited the judge and
the jury to see the locus and we have no doubt that the
jury.obtained the same assistance which we have had. We
think it must have been as a result of what they saw that
the jury found themselves able to draw the inferences which they did.
This is a very small room: the bathroom is
extremely cramped. The jury must have been satisfied that
Cheung and Sin would have been aware had the Deceascd come out of the bathroom through Room 603. Having seen that
room, we think that they were entitled to draw that inference. If the Deceased did not come through that way that means that he must have gone out through the bathroom window. The learned judge properly directed the jury that if the Deceased went out of that window as a result of being put in fear by the attack then it mattered not whether the Appellant was actually present at the moment that the Deceased fell to his death. I make this point because the young man, Kwok, gave evidence that at the time that this Appellant came down the stairs and they both ran away he had not seen anybody fall from the building into the gutter. Whether that was accepted by the jury or not we think is immaterial. The important thing is that it was because of the fear which was aroused by the attack in which this Appellant was undoubtedly involved that the Deceased climbed out of the window and it was as a result of his being in this precarious position outside the building that he died.
In our view, therefore, there was evidence which justified the jury in coming to the conclusion that this man was guilty of murder. That being so, although we had at
one stage considerable doubts, now we are perfectly satisfied that the jury were entitled to find as they did and it is not open to us in this court to interfere with their verdict.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
8th March 1974.
Page 120Page 121