81
prisoner determined to take the law into his own hands, picked up the chopper which he knew was there and pursued Leung Ki and cut him down. If that is the view you take of the matter, gentlemen, then that is Murder. It is difficult to imagine a clearer and more complete case of Murder.
On the other hand, you may be disposed to think that the threat of exclusion from Chinese Street coupled with the tap on the shoulder so provoked the accused man as to cause him in his just and proper resentment to retaliate. If you take that view, the law is equally clear. For a blow with the fist or for a tap with the open hand, a man is entitled and only justified when he retaliates with a similar or a comparable weapon. That is to say, if after a tap on the shoulder, he struck out with his own fist and hit Leung Ki on the jaw and knocked him down and Leung Ki had fractured his skull - there would have been a good deal to be said for the prisoner, but the law does not allow you to take a dangerous weapon such as a chopper and wreak your vengeance and work off your resentment of the insult as in this case. When a man does that with a dangerous weapon such as that it is Murder and nothing short of Murder, and so - if you accept the story told by the Crown witnesses that there was no fight, no altercation or wrangling, but a chance blow struck, but no fight there has been nothing said from beginning to end of this case that can reduce the charge here from that brought against the accused in the indictment for the murder of Leung Ki.
On the other hand we have the evidence of the prisoner
81
prisoner determined to take the law into his own hands,
picked up the chopper which he knew was there and pursued
Leung Ki and cut him down. If that is the view you take
of the matter, gentlemen, then that is Murder. It is
difficult to imagine a clearer and more complete case of
Murder.
fully entitled to retaliate, but he is
On the other hand, you may be disposed to think that
the threat of exclusion from Chinese Street coupled with
the tap on the shoulder so provoked the accused man as to
cause him in his just and proper resentment to retaliate.
If you take that view, the law is equally clear.
For a
blow with the fist or for a tap with the open hand, a
man is entitled and
only justified when he retaliates with a similar or a
comparable weapon. That is to say, if after a tap on the
shoulder, he struck out with his own fist and hit Leung Ki
on the jaw and knocked him down and Leung Ki had fractured
his skull - there would have been a good deal to be said
for the prisoner, but the law does not allow you to take a
dangerous weapon such as a chopper and wreak your vengeance
and work off your resentment of the insult as in this case.
When a man does that with a dangerous weapon such as that
it is Murder and nothing short of Murder, and so - if you
accept the story told by the Crown witnesses that there was
no fight, no altercat on or wrangling, but a chance blow
struck, but no fight there has been nothing said from
UND
beginning to end of this case that can reduce the charge
here from that brought against the accused in the indictment
for the murder of Leung Ki.
On the other hand we have the evidence of the
prisoner
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.