Read the full judgment text of CACC 189/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 September 2011 before Stock VP, Hartmann JA and Tong J.
Criminal law – murder – two counts of murder – sex workers – chloroform applied to towel – suffocation by forceful obstruction of mouth and nose – subsequent theft of property – applicant did not testify – defence based entirely on seven video-recorded cautioned interviews and two recorded re-enactments – duty of trial judge to identify the defence and to summarise the issues and evidence clearly, accurately and fairly – whether summing-up was unfair and unbalanced for failure to summarise the defence case and for systematic demolition of its various aspects – held, summing-up was unfair and unbalanced because the defence case was multi-layered and complex and the judge did no more than refer the jury to the records of interview and then proceed to demolish the defence point by point – whether repeated description of the towels as 'soaked' in chloroform was inaccurate and prejudicial – held, use of the word 'soaked' was inaccurate given applicant's evidence that he used a Cantonese expression equivalent to 'dip' and had applied only a small quantity, and its constant repetition added to the impression of an unbalanced summing-up – whether the judge materially misdirected the jury by directing that the applicant's attempt to dispose of a container of chloroform at the time of his arrest was capable of supporting an inference as to his intent at the time of each killing – held, yes, because the applicant had at all times admitted the unlawful killing itself, and the disposal of incriminating evidence was not capable of supporting an inference as to whether that killing was murder or manslaughter – whether Nendrick direction was given – ground not pursued as direction was in fact given – whether convictions for murder could be substituted for manslaughter – held, no, because the facts warranted a trial for murder – appeal allowed – convictions quashed – retrial ordered – appellant remanded in custody – sentencing of life imprisonment on each count set aside on quashing of convictions.
Legal issues: Failure to summarise defence case in summing-up · Use of the word 'soaked' to describe the chloroform on the towels · Misdirection on inference of intent from disposal of chloroform container
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions for both counts of murder quashed; retrial ordered; appellant remanded in custody pending retrial.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case