TNAG-0487-FCO40-552-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 188

8

as recorded with the confused way that the prisoner gave evidence

before them. According to the Crown's evidence, the prisoner was

frightened and excited when he was arrested, and although the Chiu Chow Sergeant who acted as interpreter when the prisoner made his

statement after arrest said that the prisoner had never told him

that his wife had grabbed his private parts, he did say that it was practically impossible to interpret word for word what the prisoner had said to him. This Sergeant had also given evidence

that he was familiar with the Chiu Chow people, and that if anybody

had thrown away a Chiu Chow man's ancestral tablets, that man

would be very angry.

I was somewhat surprised at the jury's verdict. Quite

frankly on the evidence adduced as a whole, I had expected a

verdict of manslaughter, but clearly by their verdict the jury

indicated that they had, as they were quite entitled so to do,

entirely rejected the prisoner's evidence, and had not drawm the

conclusions from the surrounding evidence as suggested by the

defence. The jury clearly accepted the Crown's evidence and had agreed that the provocation alleged in the prisoner's

statements produced by the Crown, i.e. pinching and a threat

only to throw away the prisoner's ancestral tablet would not

amount to such provocation in law as to reduce the offence of

murder to one of manslaughter, and if this is the case, then I

cannot quarrel with their verdict. The jury was undoubtedly a

strong jury, it was an all male jury consisting of an Australian, an Englishman, a Dutchman and 4 Chinese, and they took over 4 hours

in their deliberations.

However there is no evidence to indicate that this was

a premeditated murder, it arose as a result of a quarrel between

the prisoner and his wife, and under all the circumstances I

respectfully suggest that Your Excellency might consider commuting the death sentence in this case, and I would respectfully recommend

that a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment should be substituted

for the scntence of death in the case of this prisoner.

(M. Morley-John, J.)

27th December, 1973.