4.
LAU Wah after LAU Wah had tried to rush him with a ̈
stool.
2.
The trial judge put the issue of 'common intent clearly before the jury. Various grounds of appeal were filed. For the most part, these detailed
alleged discrepancies in the evidence of the various witnesses called for the prosecution. The whole incident took place in a very few minutes. It was a very exciting incident and it was not surprising therefore that one witness gave a different version of a particular part of the incident from another. However, this was clearly pointed out to the jury by the judge and when the so-called discrepancies were examined it clearly appears that where there was a discrepancy it was as to a trivial matter and moreover one that was only to be expected from an incident such as the witnesses were describing.
The appellant also complained that the judge did not deal with the case for the defence as fully as he had done for the case for the prosecution. The summing-up was given the day after evidence had been given by the appellant. It was therefore fresh in the minds of the jury and the judge most carefully stated what the defence was and what would be the result if the jury believed that defence. I can find no fault here. After the summing-up the jury asked the judge for further directions on two
points. Great play was made at the hearing of the
appeal at the way in which these were answered. For
the appellant it was suggested that the answer given by the judge to the questions might have been understood by the jury in a sense which deprived the appellant of a possible verdict of manslaughter. What the jury wanted to know in the first instance was whether, should they be
divided as to five or six in favour of guilty of murder and the remainder in favour of guilty of manslaughter, they ought thereupon to return a verdict of not guilty of ·
>
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.