TNAG-0488-FCO40-553-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 6

- 3-

bell, and that when the proprietor opened the door, all three of them rushed in together. This does not agree with the evidence given by the proprietor, Mr. CHEUNG Kwong-ping, nor the evidence of WONG Pang-yuk. The prisoner went on to say that the proprietor resisted them and they went forward with the intention of subduing him and that in the commotion the proprietor and others were stabbed and wounded. He said that at the time he did not know that the wife

of the proprietor had been stabbed. If this is correct I do not know what he meant in his statement when he said that the proprietor

and others were stabbed and wounded because from all the evidence

the proprietor and his wife were the only two persons attacked.

He said that it was only after seeing a report in the newspapers

that he was aware of the fact that the proprietor's wife had been severely wounded and had died.

The prisoner's defence was one of alibi. He said that

he had never met his co-accused before he was arrested. The Crown

called an independent witness, Madam CHAN Pik-chu, who had seen the prisoner and his co-accused on the evening of the 23rd August, she said that they were together and that they did know one another. The prisoner said that at the time of the incident he had been in a

dance hall with a girl friend. The girl friend was called to give

evidence by the Crown in rebuttal, and she said that although sho

knew the prisoner she was not with him anywhere on the night in

question. The prisoner said that his statement had been invented

by the police and he had been forced by beatings to sign the statement.

Medical evidence was given that soon after his arrest the prisoner was

medically examined and there was no mark of violence on him which there

certainly would have been if he had been beaten as he alleged.

from the contents of the statement it was clear that it could not have

been invented by the police as alleged by the prisoner.

Also

The jury, in my opinion perfectly correctly, disbelieved the evidence of the prisoner and on the evidence adduced by the Crown

found the prisoner guilty of murder. I imagine that the reason why the jury only found the prisoner's co-accused guilty of manslaughter

is that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his

intention was to kill or to cause really serious bodily harm to the

deceased and that he arrived at the scene a little later than the