TNAG-0488-FCO40-553-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 116

+

slightly downwards and I am fully satisfied that anybody who

walked or crawled along it was taking an appalling risk and that,

therefore, the deceased must have felt himself in acute danger

of personal violence or, indeed, of death, before he would attempt

to do what he did. As to the fact that neither Mr. Cheung nor

Fr. Sin saw the deceased during their escape, from the evidence it was clear that they both rushed through that, bathroom with the only thought in their minds of getting out of the window as soon

as possible. Personally, if I had been either of them clinging to that neon sign five stories above ground level I doubt if I would have noticed if anybody was on that asbestos awning. Both

r. Cheung and Mr. Sin were quickly below the level of that awning,

certainly Mr. Sin as he fell straight through it. There was also evidence adduced that the neon sign was not illuminated and

therefore the lighting conditions were not good.

The prisoner elected not to give evidence in his own defence and so the jury were left with his somewhat confused

statement made under caution to the effect that the prisoner was present on the premises having gone there with other persons but that once there he only acted in self-defence. The jury obviously did not believe this statement and taking into consideration the

other evidence adduced I agree with their findings.

The prisoner is a young man of 20 years of age, but this attack in which he undoubtedly took part was a typical revenge attack by this gang against the staff of this apartment house. There was some mention in the prisoner's statement made under caution of an earlier quarrel. This gang armed with long knives attacked everybody that they could find in that apartment house quite indiscriminately, and five persons in those premises were badly slashed with knives. Indeed it was very fortunate that only one person lost his life as a result of this attack.

Under the circumstances, I can see no mitigating

circumstances in this case at all. However, should your Excellency

decide to commute the death sentence I would respectfully recommend

that a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment be substituted for the

sentence of death.

15th March, 1974.

(M. Morley-John, J.)