3
10.
SUMMARY.
There is no doubt on the evidence that LAU was at the
There is no doubt that he
apartment at the time of the killing.
was armed with a knife, and there is no doubt that he used that
knife to wound someone. Apart from LAU's own admission, the
evidence of WONG Pan-yuk was that, after the events, there was
blood on LAU's underpants which must have got there when he
concealed the knife about his person as he ran away..
11.
There was, however, no direct evidence that it was
LAU who stabbed the deceased. The evidence of Mr. CHEUNG,her
husband, was that it was the first man to come to the door of the
apartment who stabbed her and the evidence of WONG Pan-yuk was
that it was LAU who went up first. Although WONG was an accom-
plice, the jury must have believed the evidence that he gave in
this respect in order to support the verdict of murder which
they returned against LAU.
12. (a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
PRINCIPAL FACTORS.
This was an outrageous killing of a defenceless woman
of 57 years of age, who was coming to the aid of her
husband who was himself attempting to resist a robbery.
It seems clear that she was attacked in order to prevent
her from raising further alarm.
On the jury's verdict, LAU struck the fatal blow. He
also provided the knives used by him and his co-accused.
The verdict of murder against LAU is perhaps mildly
surprising in view of the relatively thin evidence
showing that he struck the fatal blow. Nonetheless,
there are sufficient evidence and the verdict is fully
supportable.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.