TNAG-0487-FCO40-552-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 190

2

the file and not having seen the witnesses, would not have been at

all surprised if the jury had returned such a verdict. As we read the summing-up of the learned judge this was the verdict which he anticipated, but it is not the verdict which was returned. We

find ourselves unable to say that the jury returned a wrong verdict

because we do not know which of the factors relied upon for the plea of provocation (if any of them) were believed by the jury.

If they disbelieved the whole of the Applicant's story then a

verdict of guilty of murder was inevitable.

This is not a case whore, in our view, it would be appropriate

to rely in any way on s.83 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.

We cannot say that this verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

On a reading of the file we think it is a surprising verdict but

we cannot say anything more than that. If we were to use s.

s.83

in a case of this kind it would completely destroy the whole foundation of trial by jury.

In our view the application must be dismissed.

27th December 1973.