HKSAR v. LAI SIK HUNG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 636
(Criminal)

--------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder after trial in the High Court before Stock, J. and a jury. He seeks leave to appeal against the convictions and against the sentence of 24 years' imprisonment imposed in respect of the conspiracy count.

2. Stock, J. set out in considerable detail all the relevant facts and background. This was an unhappy love triangle.

3. The Applicant had established a relationship with the victim's wife Madam Wu. According to evidence which was before the court the victim and his wife did not have a happy marriage. The Applicant was aware of the fact that the victim had on occasion subjected Madam Wu to physical assaults.

4. The applicant made statements and gave evidence to the effect that Madam Wu had had discussions with him as to how her husband could be disposed of. The Applicant gave evidence that Madam Wu had encouraged him to kill her husband.

5. On the evening of 30th December 1996 the Applicant who had been on relatively good terms with the victim had arranged to go fishing with him. They had done this together previously. While they were at the water there was a struggle and lethal knife wounds were inflicted upon the victim's body. There was evidence that prior to the evening in question the Applicant and Madam Wu had purchased the knife which had caused the injuries. At the conclusion of the struggle the Applicant believing that the victim was dead had kicked his body into the water.

6. The next day Madam Wu reported her husband as a missing person.

7. The Applicant made a statement to the police in which he said that he had made arrangements to go fishing with the victim but he had failed to attend at the appointed venue.

8. Some time after this the victim's mortal remains were found and Madam Wu identified his body.

9. The Applicant who lived with his parents admitted to them that he had been involved in the victim's death. At their urging he had given himself up to the police and made further statements to them.

10. In these statements the Applicant said that the victim had initiated the fight against him. He said that the victim had accused him of having an affair with his wife and when he admitted this had become violent and he had abused him using foul language. The gist of the Applicant's case was a mixture of self defence and provocation. He said that at the conclusion of the struggle he had panicked and pushed the victim's body into the water.

11. One of the issues at the trial was the evidence of the plans which had been made by the Applicant and Madam Wu for killing the victim. At the trial the Applicant claimed that there was no plan to kill the victim. All that there was were discussions concerning the possibility of this happening. The conspiracy count was based on this.

12. Stock, J. summed up at considerable length to the jury and placed before them all of the different possibilities. The jury returned unanimous verdicts on both counts.

13. The Applicant's grounds of appeal are framed in the most general terms. Complaint is made that the Judge was biased and that he had wrongly directed the jury. Complaint is also made that the press distorted the truth of the matter.

14. Before us the Applicant did not elaborate on these grounds. He did however complain that there were discussions as to whether D2 that is Madam Wu would be a witness against him. He complained that as she didn't appear this would have an impact on the case. He did not however put forward any sensible reason why this had been detrimental to him. There is nothing in any of these grounds of appeal. These convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and the application is dismissed.

Sentence

15. There is also the Applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence on the 2nd count. The Judge dealt with all of the relevant matters in connection with the conspiracy in his Reasons for Sentence at pages 112 and 113 of the bundle before us. This was a bad case of conspiracy to murder with few if any mitigating circumstances. It is not possible to say that the sentence of 24 years' imprisonment was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. This application is also dismissed.