Page:HKSAR v. Xu Shengqi (CACC 463-2010).djvu/10

Rh 33. As to self-defence, we are likewise satisfied that the Judge’s directions, orally and in writing, were correct and adequate and it is clear from the jury’s verdict that they rejected the applicant’s case that, in killing Mr Tam, he had acted in self-defence. Again, the jury was entitled to do so.

The causes of death of Madam Tong and the two daughters and inconsistent verdicts

34. The Judge correctly directed the jury that the only issues, so far as Madam Tong was concerned, were whether the applicant had the requisite intention for murder when he did the act or acts which caused her death and, if so, whether he was acting under provocation. Likewise, the Judge correctly directed the jury that the only issue, so far as the two daughters were concerned, was whether the applicant had the requisite intention for murder when he did the acts which caused their respective deaths.

35. As in the case of MrTam, the applicant admitted killing Madam Tong and the two daughters and the causes of their respective deaths were not in issue. In any event, the Judge correctly directed the jury as to the evidence regarding the causes of their respective deaths: suffocation in the case of Madam Tong and Tam Hui-ying; ligature strangulation in the case of Tam Hui-man.

36. As regards the issues which were properly left to the jury in respect of Madam Tong and the two daughters, we are fully satisfied that the Judge correctly and adequately directed the jury on those issues. It is clear, from the jury’s verdicts on counts 2 and 4, that the jury was sure that the applicant intended to kill both Madam Tong and Tam Hui-ying or to cause them really serious bodily harm; and in the case of Madam Tong that they were sure the prosecution had established that her killing was not a case of provocation.