HKSAR v. Wan Tak
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 4 February 1999.
1. The applicant in this matter asks us to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision of this court. The point of law raised suggests that the judge did not properly direct the jury as to the law on provocation. As we indicated in the judgment which we delivered in this matter on 26th September 1997, we were satisfied that the trial judge correctly and fully directed the jury as to the law on provocation and that no issue of law of great and general i
|
CACC000411A/1996 CACC411/96 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 OF 1996 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO.13 OF 1996)
------------------------------- Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. Chief Judge, H.C., Mayo, J.A. & Gall, J. Date of Hearing: 4 February 1999 Date of Decision: 4 February 1999 ---------------------- D E C I S I O N ---------------------- Power, Ag. Chief Judge, H.C. (giving the decision of the Court): 1. The applicant in this matter asks us to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision of this court. The point of law raised suggests that the judge did not properly direct the jury as to the law on provocation. As we indicated in the judgment which we delivered in this matter on 26th September 1997, we were satisfied that the trial judge correctly and fully directed the jury as to the law on provocation and that no issue of law of great and general importance therefor arises. That being so, we refuse to certify.
Representation: Mr. D.G. Saw, S.C. leading Miss Catherine Ko (D.P.P.) for Respondent Applicant in person. |