4
Self defence
It would have been open to the jury to find that the
defendant had acted in self defence, if they had taken the view that the defendant was merely defending himself against a serious attack by Tong with a pole (which was of a size capable of
inflicting a painful blow).
The jury rejected this defence, either on the basis that Li had, on his own evidence, pushed Tong out of his cubicle and thus had no need to follow him further with the knife, OT because (and this seems the more likely reason) they came to
the conclusion that Li had lost his temper and was pursuing Tong;
and that it was Tong who was acting in self defence, trying to
ward off the knife.
Provocation
There was certainly some provocation.
The defendant
was sitting in his 'cubicle, watching his TV. A young man came in.
and demanded that he turn the volume. down.
It
was a hot summer
evening, there was an invasion of his premises, and Tong was insistent. It was essentially for the jury to decide whether an ordinary reasonable man, in such circumstances, would have lost his
self control and reacted in the manner which Li did..
The jury by their verdict must have decided that the
retaliation of the defendant to the acts of the victim was
unreasonable and I see no reason to disagree with them.
Dangerous act
The jury might also have found that the defendant had not intended to injure the deceased, but had been guilty of an unlawful and dangerous act causing death; this would amount in
law to manslaughter.
This possible finding was put to the jury at the end
of the summing up, at the request of counsel, though it had not.
been mentioned during the trial itself.
Such a finding would have been possible if the jury thought that the defendant had picked up the knife and chased