Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manslaughter vs murder

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN LOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MAN LOK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC522/2000

The Court held the sentencing judge correctly applied the Hodgson criteria, was entitled to conclude from the nature of the offences, the Applicants' conduct and the psychological reports that they manifested instability and posed an ongoing danger, and therefore life sentences and the minimum term of 20 years (under section 67B) were justified and not manifestly excessive.
20 Dec 1995

R. v. WONG YUE HING

Citation

R. v. WONG YUE HING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC417/1995

The Court held the trial judge did not err in admitting the applicant's statements and videotapes because, after a voir dire, the prosecution's explanation that the injuries were not caused by police was open on the evidence and the judge was entitled to accept it; accordingly the statements were admissible and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
2 Sept 1994

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.

Citation

TSANG KAM CHEONG v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC623/1993

Although the court considered that the facts supported a conviction for murder and the plea of manslaughter should not have been accepted, on the constrained basis of manslaughter the offending was of the worst kind justifying the highest available punishment and, given three separate violent episodes, overwhelming evidence and the applicant's dangerousness, the aggregate sentence of 31 years was not excessive and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
25 May 1993

R. v. LAI HON MAN

Citation

R. v. LAI HON MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC421/1992

The conviction was quashed because the judge misdirected the jury by effectively placing on the accused the burden to prove provocation and requiring the jury to be 'sure' of provocation, and also failed to give necessary directions (including on manslaughter and good character); provocation directions must be given correctly even where conduct appears self-induced, following Johnson/Leung.
11 Aug 1987

THE QUEEN v. LAM HON WING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM HON WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC87/1987

Although the form of cross-examination inviting the accused to call other witnesses liars was improper, it did not constitute such an irregularity as to require intervention; and a Broadhurst-style direction on lies was not required in this case because the killing was undisputed, the defence of a suicide pact imposed the burden on the accused to prove it on the balance of probabilities, and the jury were entitled to rely on the Crown's evidence and the applicant's inconsistent accounts to reject the suicide pact defence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was…
19 Sept 1984

THE QUEEN v. LAI WING-YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAI WING-YIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC48/1984

The judge correctly instructed the jury to determine subjectively the concerted action to which the defendants assented and then objectively whether an ordinary person in the circumstances would have foreseen a real risk of injury from that enterprise; on that basis the manslaughter convictions were properly upheld.
13 Mar 1980

SIU KING HIM AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SIU KING HIM AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC222/1979

The judge's directions, taken as a whole, were legally adequate: the burden of proof remained on the Crown; evidence established that the gang went armed intending at least to intimidate and to use force if necessary; therefore convictions of D2, D4 and D6 for murder could stand; provocation and self‑defence were not available to D6 on the facts and no reasonable jury could have found otherwise.
9 Jan 1979

WONG CHEUNG-HING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG CHEUNG-HING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC391/1978

Although the trial judge's direction did not follow the Camplin formulation verbatim, his charge left provocation open on the evidence and would reasonably have been understood by the jury to include the accused's relationship and prior ill-treatment; therefore the directions were adequate and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
27 Jul 1972

LI CHI WING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LI CHI WING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC187/1972

Appeals dismissed for all appellants except the sixth appellant; provocation need not have been left to the jury on the facts; the judge's directions on confessions were adequate; the sixth appellant's conviction for manslaughter (second count) was quashed because it could not stand consistently with the principles governing common intent and the evidence of the conspiracy.