Read the full judgment text of CACC 000663/1972 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 November 1972 before Rigby, C.J., Huggins and McMullin, JJ..
Criminal law – murder – diminished responsibility – Homicide Ordinance (Cap. 339) s.3 – abnormality of mind – requirement for medical evidence on etiology – appellate review of jury verdict – killing of 74-year-old watchman by repeated stabbing with umbrella – apparently motiveless – bizarre post-offence conduct. The appellant, aged 50, killed the deceased, MUI Suk-fung, a 74-year-old watchman in a Kowloon block of flats, by stabbing him three times with an umbrella on 5 June 1972; the umbrella tip penetrated the neck to the spinal vertebra, pierced the side of the head into the skull, and entered the chest wall, causing death two days later from fractured skull base and blood inhalation. The appellant and deceased were close friends, the appellant having lived with and helped the deceased with his night watchman duties, and there was no apparent motive for the killing. After the attack, the appellant accompanied Mrs. Chan in the lift to her ninth-floor flat, sat on her sofa for over an hour smoking, muttered "bad man", and asked her to book a hotel room, before being arrested as he left. The substantial defence at trial was diminished responsibility under s.3(1) of the Homicide Ordinance. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Chen and Dr. McIlvenna, gave irreconcilable theories: Dr. Chen claimed transient psychosis/delirium tremens (a theory he conceded was not found in any recognised textbook), while Dr. McIlvenna claimed a depressive illness allegedly triggered by the appellant's first act of sexual intercourse in his life. Each doctor in effect undermined the other's diagnosis. Issue: whether the Commissioner's direction to the jury was correct that there must be some mental disease before the diminished responsibility rule could apply, and that if the medical evidence was rejected there was no evidence of mental disease. Holding: the direction was correct; medical evidence is required to trace acts of abnormality to a specific mental cause or condition in order to establish the etiology of the abnormality of mind under s.3. Following Parker LCJ in Patrick Joseph Byrne (1960) 44 Cr. App. R. 246, while the jury may consider all evidence including the accused's acts, statements and demeanour in determining whether an abnormality of mind existed, the etiology of the abnormality (whether from arrested or retarded development of mind, inherent causes, or disease or injury) is a matter to be determined on expert evidence. The jury was fully entitled to reject the conflicting medical evidence and to find that no mental disease substantially impairing the appellant's mental responsibility had been established on the balance of probabilities. Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction and sentence of death stand.
Legal issues: Requirement of medical evidence for diminished responsibility under s.3 Homicide Ordinance · Whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was supportable on the evidence
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction for murder and sentence of death stand.