HKSAR v. Chan Wai-man Andy
Read the full judgment text of CACC 353/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 April 2002.
1. On 7 September 2001, the Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, following a trial before Burrell J and a jury. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction although Mr Stephen Franklin has very properly indicated that he has, on the Applicant's behalf, been unable to advance any arguable ground of appeal. The Applicant's homemade ground merely states that he disagrees with the verdict and is asking for a retrial.
|
CACC000353/2001 CACC 353/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 319 OF 2000) ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA and Seagroatt J Date of Hearing: 26 April 2002 Date of Judgment: 26 April 2002 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Stuart-Moore VP (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.On 7 September 2001, the Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, following a trial before Burrell J and a jury. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction although Mr Stephen Franklin has very properly indicated that he has, on the Applicant's behalf, been unable to advance any arguable ground of appeal. The Applicant's homemade ground merely states that he disagrees with the verdict and is asking for a retrial. 2.The trial began on 3 September 2001 with the Applicant pleading guilty to the manslaughter of his twenty-seven-year-old girlfriend (the deceased) on 13 June 2000. When the prosecution did not accept that plea, the sole issues at trial were concerned firstly with the Applicant's intent at the time that he admittedly killed the deceased by strangulation with his bare hands, and secondly with provocation. The Applicant did not give evidence and no witnesses were called on his behalf. On both these issues, the judge's summing up of the law was balanced and fair and, in our opinion, was open to no valid criticism of any kind. 3.Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Representation: Mr John Reading, DDPP and Ms Vinci Lam, GC , of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent. Mr Stephen Franklin, instructed by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant. |