Page:HKSAR v. Xu Shengqi (CACC 463-2010).djvu/12

Rh 40. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the jury’s respective verdicts on counts 2, 3 and 4 cannot be said to be ones at which no reasonable jury could have arrived. The prosecution case as to the applicant’s intentions in carrying out the killings of Madam Tong and the two daughters was based on inferences. The verdict of manslaughter on count 3 is explicable on the basis that the jury was not prepared to draw the irresistible inference that the applicant had the requisite intention for murder solely from the way he had tied up Tam Hui-man. Whereas, in respect of count 2, the jury had the additional fact that Madam Tong’s head had been completely sealed and, in respect of count 4, there was the additional fact that the applicant had put Tam Hui-ying into a nylon bag that would prevent her from breathing and make her death inevitable.

41. We would add that the Judge carefully and properly directed the jury that each charge had to be considered separately; that even if the applicant was guilty of murder in relation to one particular deceased, he might still be not guilty in relation to another; or that, if he was guilty of manslaughter on one count, it did not mean he might not be acquitted on another count. The jury’s verdicts in the present case are indicative of the fact that they conscientiously followed this direction. In doing so and in arriving at verdicts which cannot be said to be ones at which no reasonable jury could have arrived, we cannot see any basis for challenging any of the verdicts as being unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The photographs of the deceased shown to the jury

42. We are satisfied that the Judge did not err in allowing photographs of the deceased to be shown to the jury.

43. There was no objection by the defence to the production of the photographs and in fact photographs showing the condition of the deceased