Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Murder vs manslaughter

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. TSANG CHEUNG YAN (曾祥欣)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 42
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC31/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show it was reasonably arguable that the murder verdict was inconsistent with co-accused manslaughter verdicts; the evidence demonstrated materially different intentions and roles justifying the respective verdicts, and the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome and lacked adequate explanation for its late adducing.
31 Oct 2022

HKSAR v. WONG FUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1163
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC266/2018

The judge's directions were correct and lawful because the defence consistently ran the case solely on provocation such that murderous intent was not a live issue at trial and there was no sufficient evidential foundation to leave an alternative verdict of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter to the jury; accordingly the application for leave to appeal and the appeal are dismissed.
16 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. TAM HO NAM

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1384
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC219/2019

The admissions of the Ambulance Conversation did not prejudice the trial; the alleged deficiencies in directions (Liberato and Mushtaq) were not material because the required messages were conveyed when the summing-up is read as a whole, the applicant had previously made formal s65C admissions of voluntariness and did not withdraw them, and the claim of oppression was not credibly established; failure to give propensity limb did not render trial unfair in context of an admitted brutal killing; conviction was safe and appeal dismissed.
9 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. JUTTING, RURIK GEORGE CATON

Citation

[2018] HKCA 5
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC361/2016

The Court held that the trial judge correctly directed the jury: (1) the jury was entitled to require a diagnosable disorder (not mere traits) to establish an 'abnormality of mind' on the disputed disorders; (2) the judge's explanation of 'substantially' was appropriate in the context of the evidence and consistent with authorities; (3) psychiatrists may give opinions on the ultimate issue without usurping the jury provided the jury decide what to accept; and (4) the judge's advisory comment that the two verdicts would likely be the same was permissible as non‑mandatory guidance. Accordingly…
9 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. TSUI CHU TIN, JOHN

Citation

HKSAR v. TSUI CHU TIN, JOHN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC433/2003

Conviction for murder was unsafe because the prosecution expert's concessions (that the appellant's depression made a significant, non-trivial contribution and increased likelihood of killing) required further exploration; without adequate re-examination the jury could not safely reject diminished responsibility, so the verdict was set aside and substituted to manslaughter.
11 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. MA SIU CHIU

Citation

HKSAR v. MA SIU CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC605/2002

The judge did not err in excluding provocation for Count 2 because the applicant's own evidence showed he attacked his mother out of fear of discovery and to prevent her reporting the earlier killing, not because he lost self-control provoked by the mother; the lies direction, though it could have omitted a reference to 'innocent explanation', was not prejudicial; therefore the application for leave to appeal against the murder conviction was dismissed.
17 Jul 1991

THE QUEEN v. VU VAN THANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. VU VAN THANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC158/1990

Where accused's own statement shows he reflected, sought a weapon and acted in revenge after recalling remote past incidents, there is no evidence of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control at or about the time of the killing; accordingly the trial judge rightly withdrew provocation from the jury under s.4 and the murder convictions must be upheld.
18 Jun 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHUN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC39/1985

The conviction was upheld because the evidence supported the finding that the shooting was intentional or within the common design and the trial judge correctly and sufficiently directed the jury on accident and common design; the change of plea did not render the trial unfair.
18 Dec 1975

LIU TIM LOK AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LIU TIM LOK AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC820/1975

The summing-up contained a passage which could reasonably have led the jury to believe manslaughter was not available; that misdirection rendered the murder convictions unsafe, so the court allowed the appeals, substituted verdicts of guilty of manslaughter and imposed determinate sentences of imprisonment (5 years for the younger appellant and 6 years for the other) based on youth, lack of premeditation, clear records and surrender to police.
26 Nov 1975

LAM MUI YAU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAM MUI YAU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC821/1975

Although the summing-up contained confusing and in parts misleading passages, read as a whole the directions were sufficiently clear and any misdirection was not such as to result in a miscarriage of justice; there was adequate corroborative evidence for the unsworn child's testimony; therefore the convictions were properly left standing and the appeal dismissed.