HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI CHUNG

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI CHUNG

Transient extreme emotional arousal, even if it causes sudden loss of self-control, is not a 'disease of the mind' within section 3 of the Homicide Ordinance; expert assertion alone cannot establish such disease; accordingly there was no foundation for diminished responsibility and the issue was withdrawn from the jury, leaving provocation (and manslaughter by unlawful act) to be considered.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI CHUNG
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Accused/defendant: Leung Wai-Chung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 1997
Case Number
HCCC404/1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Homicide (murder Trial) / Trial Ruling on Diminished Responsibility (mid Trial)
Outcome
Diminished responsibility withdrawn; jury directed to consider provocation and manslaughter by unlawful act.
Legal Topics
Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, Disease of the Mind, Interpretation of Homicide Ordinance S3, Role of Psychiatric Evidence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Homicide Defences Evidence Forensic Psychiatry Diminished Responsibility Provocation Disease of the Mind +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Leung Wai-Chung

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Homicide (murder Trial) / Trial Ruling on Diminished Responsibility (mid Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transient extreme emotional arousal constitutes a 'disease of the mind' under section 3 of the Homicide Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the ipse dixit of a psychiatrist is sufficient to leave diminished responsibility to the jury
  3. 3 Relationship between diminished responsibility and provocation and whether both defences can be run together

Ratio Decidendi

Transient extreme emotional arousal, even if it causes sudden loss of self-control, is not a 'disease of the mind' within section 3 of the Homicide Ordinance; expert assertion alone cannot establish such disease; accordingly there was no foundation for diminished responsibility and the issue was withdrawn from the jury, leaving provocation (and manslaughter by unlawful act) to be considered.

Court Disposition

Diminished responsibility withdrawn; jury directed to consider provocation and manslaughter by unlawful act.

Orders

  • Withdraw issue of diminished responsibility from the jury.
  • Direct the jury that the state of 'extreme emotional arousal' described does not, in law, amount to disease of the mind under section 3.