The Queen v. Woo Ping Yue

CACC000364/1986

BETWEEN

_________

Coram: Yang & Silke, JJ.A. & Penlington, J.

Date of Hearing: 27th November 1986

Date of Judgment: 27th November 1986

____________

JUDGMENT'

____________

Silke, J. A.:

1. Woo Ping Yue was charged with the murder, on the 20th February 1986, of his wife, Tsang Man Kuen.

2. At the outset of the trial before Garcia J. and a jury, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter but this plea was not accepted and his trial for murder proceeded.

3. It was admitted that he did kill his wife at their home at Lai King Estate. The killing was done with a pair of scissors. It was advanced in the Court below on his behalf, and by him, that this killing was as a result of the provocation offered by the deceased.

4. The couple had been married for some 17 years and there were four children of the marriage. In recent years, the marriage had been an unhappy one and there were quarrels and fights. There was evidence that the Appellant did not answer back in the course of those quarrels. Both were hawkers and the wife's hawking was somewhat more successful than was the Appellant's.

5. On the evening of the 19th February there had been an argument between them with some threat of the wife's being sent back to China if she did not behave herself and treat the Appellant better.

6. On the 20th, there was a telephone call from a person from whom the Appellant had borrowed some money. After that telephone call, the Appellant gave $300 and his bank passbook to one of his daughters telling her to take care of the younger children. Before that daughter left the house for school, the deceased expressed to her a fear of what might happen and asked the girl to go and fetch her aunt. The girl left.

7. Another daughter, who was also on her way to school, remembered that she had left her umbrella behind and returned to the flat. She found she was unable to enter it because the door was looked. She heard sounds inside the flat and she was told by the deceased to get the police and when she asked what was happening, the deceased said she was being stabbed with scissors.

8. The girl went to a neighbour and called the police. She returned to the flat and implored her father "not to do this" and heard her mother shout that her father had stabbed her. There was also a view taken through the skylight of the door when the mother was seen lying on the ground with blood around her.

9. The police on arrival broke down the door of the flat and the deceased was found lying on the floor with a pair of scissors beside her.

10. The body had a large number of injuries. The Appellant himself was injured both on his neck and his hand and it was upon the basis of those injuries and that which the Appellant said in evidence that provocation was raised.

11. The Appellant had also said, at the time of his arrest, that the deceased had stabbed him first and it was his defence that he had been driven into a frenzy and the deceased's scolding made him go out of his wits.

12. There was evidence that the deceased had a hot temper and had a conviction for assault upon her own mother. There was also evidence that the Appellant had a good character and had never been in any trouble.

13. The matter was fully canvassed before the jury both in the evidence and in the course of the summing up by the trial judge. The Appellant was represented in the Court below by a leading counsel and Mr. Howard, with him Miss Fong, who appears for the Appellant in this Court, has informed us that on a consideration of the record and the summing up there were no arguable grounds that he can advanced to us in respect of the appeal. We, having read the record, are in agreement with the view that he has expressed. The summing up cannot be faulted. All the matters that should have been said were said. The matter was entirely one for the jury. It was for them to decide whether or not the facts amounted to murder or, if there were provocation, so reducing the offence to manslaughter. This was a tragic case. The jury were entitled to come to the verdict they did and the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

William Howard, Esq., Q.C. & Miss Fong Chooi Yong (D. L. A.) for Appellant

I.G. Cross, Esq. for Crown