-15-
87
was a running fight, continued for a period covering all
that area from the three boxes up to the Tak Hing Paint
Shop and that at the end of it, in the heat of passion, the
accused man cut down Leung Ki; that is manslaughter; but
he did not for having cut him down the first time if I may
continue with a botanical metaphor he 'pruned' him three
more times.
There is no reason why the heat of passion
should have lasted long enough to inflict four blows. There
is no reason at all for a man, however flushed he may be with
the triumph of victory, however relieved he may be by the
knowledge that he had avoided further attack, to repeat his
savage attack on his assailant by striking three more
deliberate blows such as we have here.
If you can account for these blows, gentlemen, as blows
struck at random during the running fight, then again the
defence of manslaughter would be available but if you believe
the story of the noodle seller that the blows were struck
after Leung Ki was lying helpless on the ground there, there
can be no question of manslaughter whatsoever.
So I come to the end of my charge to you, You will
remember throughout that it is, as Mr. Prentis has been at
pains to tell you twice, for the prosecution to establish
the guilt of this man to your satisfaction - that is to say
beyond any reasonable doubt - the sort of doubt that would
make you hesitate before acting in important business affairs
or in momentuous domestic affairs. If you have any real
doubt then don't find him guilty of murder: say "I am not
sure." But the only other verdict - so far as I can see here,
as the trial judge who is charged with the task of instructing
you on the law, the only charge that I can suggest is one of
mans laughter and the difference there is this.