1
5
13. The jury found the petitioner guilty of murder and the second accused not guilty of murder but guilty of man- slaughter. It is clear that they rejected any question of self-defence; they must have concluded that the petitioner intended at least grevious bodily harm when striking the deceased. The verdicts indicate that they rejected the Crown's contention that there was a common design between the petitioner and the second accused to kill the deceased.
14. The petitioner had no previous convictions.
DEFENCE
15.
The petitioner did not give evidence. The second accused did give evidence. He testified that the flat in Yuen Long had indeed been hired by the Petitioner but claimed that it was to be used as a base for himself and the Petitioner to sell television sets in the New Territories..
He denied that he was
any part of a plot to kill the deceased. He testified that the deceased did go to the flat in Yuen Long and that there was a heated argument between the deceased and the Petitioner. He described how the deceased picked up a chopper and went to attack the Petitioner; in self defence the Petitioner struck the deceased over the head with a square pole. He related that both he and the Petitioner were appalled and frightened to find that the deceased had in fact died as a result of the blow to the head. The second Accused testified that he then left the flat for a number of hours and that when he returned the body of the deceased had been chopped up by the Petitioner and had been put into a number of gunny sacks. He denied that the flesh had been stripped from the bones and denied that there was any mincing machine in the flat. He told the court that the sacks were then thrown into the sea off Castle Peak.
../..6