Fan Ah-moon and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC001300/1977
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 17th March, 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellants pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were each sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment. They appeal against their sentences. 2. The appellants are brothers living with other members of their family on a sampan. Close by lives another family on another sampan and the deceased, the victim of the manslaughter, was a member of this latter family. 3. The first appellant became engaged to be married to the daughter or sister of the deceased and was given a gold ring. This he exchanged for two platinum rings which were suitably engraved. One was worn by the girl and the other by the first appellant. 4. Later, the engagement was broken off and the deceased's family demanded the return of the gold ring. This he was unable or unwilling to do though he offered to return his platinum ring. 5. On April 18th at about 8 p.m. both the appellants were on their sampan which was, in effect, their home. The first appellant had a small knife in his hand as he was engaged in mending a fishing net. The deceased came over to their boat and an argument started between him and the second appellant. Two friends of the deceased joined him and the question of the return of the ring was discussed. The deceased wanted the first appellant to go to his, the deceased's, sampan. The appellants made it perfectly clear that they did not want to discuss the matter and told the deceased and his friends to leave their sampan. They refused to leave so the second appellant pushed the deceased. This, in my view, he was justified doing for the sampan was the appellants' home. A friend or relative of the appellants then appeared on the scene. And the argument between the deceased and second appellant continued both pushing each other. 6. Photographs were placed before the court which show that the space where this incident took place was very small. There was only room for very restricted movement. The deceased then punched the first appellant in the eye. One of the friends of the deceased and the deceased himself tried to drag the first appellant from the boat. The second appellant grabbed a chopper from a bystander and threatened one of the deceased's friends who fell into the sea. The second appellant was struck with a pole by one of the deceased's party. The deceased was struggling with the first appellant and the second appellant aimed a blow at him which probably landed on his shoulder. The post mortem report would seem to show this. The second appellant was himself struck and he fell into the water. The first appellant lashed out with the knife which he was still holding in his hand and struck the deceased an unlucky blow in the heart thus killing him. Both the deceased and the first appellant fell over-board. They were hauled onto the sampan and it was found that the deceased was dead. The first appellant incidentally reported the matter to the police. 7. We think that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. We think that the learned trial judge did not give enough weight to the fact that the cause of the incident was that the deceased and his friends would not leave. 8. The weapon used by the first appellant which caused the fatal blow was already in his hand and being used for a lawful purpose. It was not picked up in order to deliver a blow, the blow was an impulsive act under great provocation, which was being offered both to himself and to his brother. 9. The appellants are young and have for the purposes of this case clear records. They are also of slender physique. 10. In the event, we think that justice will best be done if we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of five years' imprisonment is reduced to a sentence of two and a half years in each case.
Representation: Sedgwick (H.H. Lau & Co.) for appellants Alderdice for crown |