The Queen v. Lam Chiu-lau

CCAC001443A/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ.A.

Date:  21st December 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Silke, J.A.:

1. The applicant, Mr. Lam Chiu Lau, was convicted of three offences after trial by jury. The first was the murder of Wong Ming-chun, a boy of about one year old; the second was the wounding of the child's mother  and I shall call her "Madam Yau"; and the third was the wounding of another child aged four.

2. The case of he prosecution was that the mother had acted as a form of marriage-broker for the applicant in his marriage to a lady of Thai nationality. A form of dowry had been paid over - if one can call it that  but the marriage filed. It would appear that the majority of the money had been paid back to the applicant.

3. On 1st August 1979 the mother was alone in her hut with her two children. The applicant came there. There was a dispute as to the return of some gold ornaments by the woman or in respect of $100 which she had held as commission. Whatever the reason for that quarrel the applicant, it was Madam Yau's evidence, then pulled a chopper out of a bag. The lady was struck. Though she did not see the actual striking, she found her face bleeding and she ran out into the area outside the squatter but calling for help. No one came to her aid at that particular point. There was then left in the but the applicant and the two children.

4. When neighbours did eventually respond to the cries of the mother they went to the but and they found the year-old child dead and the four-year-old child with very severe injuries.

5. The applicant was arrested on the 22nd October 1981 in the course of a normal gambling raid. He made statements to the police. He was identified by the mother upon an identification parade. The admission of those statements was challenged in the trial and, after a voir dire, they were admitted as voluntary.

6. The defence touched upon intoxication, self-defence and provocation but these actual defences were, and quite properly were, withdrawn from the jury by the trial judge. The basic defence was that "I did not do it but, if injuries were caused, they were accidental."

7. Mr. Payne, who appeared for the applicant at the trial and appears for him today, has, very rightly y informed us that he can see no grounds upon which he ca argue an appeal against the convictions. We have before us certain homemade grounds of the applicant which we have considered and upon which we have heard him. We have also heard him in relation to any other matter which he wished to raise.

8. The issue as to the weight the jury could place upon the statements was very fully canvassed by the trial judge in the summing-up. It was entirely a matter for the jury whether they accepted them as true or not.

9. The evidence of the mother, while not explicit as to the act which killed the child or injured the other child, clearly and positively implicated the applicant. She placed him at the scene, indeed, his presence at the scene was never denied.

10. The applicant suggested in his homemade grounds that the jury dealt with this matter in a perfunctory manner, being out in all only a few moments in the course of their deliberation. This is not correct. The jury deliberated for slightly over two hours in all although they did return within some twenty minutes after a final direction, given at their request, on several matters relating to intent and its bearing on the charges.

11. On the evidence before them it was inevitable that they would reach the conclusion they did.

12. The summing-up is not one which can be faulted. It placed every aspect of the case before the jury for their consideration and at length.

13. We are grateful for Mr. Payne's presence here and that which he had said to us in relation to his view of the case. It is a view which we share, having perused the record itself.

14. The appeal will be treated as dismissed and the convictions will, in the terms of the Governor's reference, stand.

Representation:

I. Payne, Esq. assigned by Director of Legal Aid for the Applicant.

A. Howard, Esq. for Crown/Respondent.