TNAG-0488-FCO40-553-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 77

TEL: 6-220066-8

Messrs. T.M. Chow & Co.,

Solicitors,

HONG KONG.

Dear Sirs,

1103, PRINCE'S BUILDING DES VOEUX ROAD

HONG KONG,...

11th June,

74

19

CONFIDENTIAL

Re: Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1974

I have never been so ashamed of any court in the British jurisdiction than I was at yesterday's Full Court hearing of the above appeal. Apart from the surprising refusal to grant an adjourn- ment in a case involving the death penalty, and when leading counsel had only last week been brought in, I am particularly concerned about the fact that the Judges refused an immediate application to amend the Notice of Appeal by the giving of particulars of a total of seven grounds, and only permitted one point out of the seven to be argued. For the purpose of clarification, I append below a short summary of the seven grounds of appeal that counsel wanted to argue:-

(1)

(2)

That, in all the circumstances of the case, including the questions asked of the learned judge by the jury on their return for further directions, the medical evidence was inaccurately and/or insuff- iciently explained to the jury, which amounted to a misdirection by the learned judge.

That the learned judge misdirected the jury in law, by not adequately explaining to them the alternative verdict of manslaughter, and on the contrary, confused the jury by giving them a direction on man- slaughter which was wrong in law, in that the accused, in the theoret- ical circumstances explained by the judge, would have been entitled to a complete acquittal.

-1-

: