7-3
16
Three employees at the Cactus Apartment House identified
LEUNG Wing-song. One of them said in evidence that
LEUNC chopped him once.
as one of the intruders.
Another witness recognized LEUNG
A third one identified LEUNG
as the one who gave him a blow with a knife. There was
no suggestion that any of these witnesses had been interfered with or influenced by anyone.
A fourth witness
KWOK Chi-keung (p) who was a member of the
party who raided the Cactus Apartment House said in evidence that he was waiting downstairs and saw LEUNG running down the steps with a long knife in his hand, at the same time telling KWOK that something had happened upstairs.
7-4
LEUNG elected not to give evidence at his trial. he was not precluded by the agreement reached at the Harbour Hotel to defend himself, his decision not to give evidence could not, in the circumstances, have been influenced by the agreement.
Since
7-5
7-6
The trial judge delivered a summing up to the jury favourable to LEUNG, but the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty on the count of murder as well as on each of the six counts of wounding with intent. The verdicts showed conclusively that the jury accented some or all
ME LEVITRA A DEL
of the eye-witnesses' testimony of LEUNG's participation in the attack and rojected LEUNG's cautioned statement in
so far as it referred to self-defence. If the jury had accopted the cautioned statement, or even if they had entertained a reasonable doubt as to its truth or false- hood, they would be obliged in law to acquit him. The cautioned statement therefore could not have prejudiced LEUNG's trial.
It may be asked why LEUNG did not raise any objection on being charged with murder. A probable answer is that LEUNG realized that the capital charge was not attributable to an betrayal on the part of his friends or LAU Cheong- wah. There had clearly been an honest mistake due to