TNAG-1212-FCO40-1515-Crimes-and-sentences-in-Hong-Kong--including-death-sentences-1982 — Page 128

by the three previous rules that

have really been clarified only

within the last 30 years.

(ii) This last rule will also have probably to

be modified to comply with the rules

laid down by the House of Lords in

Hyam v.

D.P.P.

(1974) 58

C.A.R.

91, i.e. without an intention: (a)

to cause death or (b) to cause grievous bodily harm i.e. really serious injury,

or (c) a knowledge that there is a

serious risk of death or grievous

bodily harm, the mere fact that the

Defendant's conduct is done in the

knowledge that grievous bodily harm

is likely to ensure from his conduct,

is not by itself enough to hold him

guilty of murder.

13.

THAT Your Petitioner further respectfully

submits that the cautioned statement, in so far as it is a confession and putting the statement at its highest, only goes to show that this Appellant did not withdraw from the plan to burgle or rob at the time when he knew that knives might be used, if necessary, in emergency. From the nature and positioning of the wounds on the said deceased, there is a very real likelihood that the 1st and 2nd accused, on being confronted by the said deceased, changed their intention from threatening or even intending to do grievous bodily harm, to killing

-17-