Page:HKSAR v. Xu Shengqi (CACC 463-2010).djvu/8

Rh 22. Secondly, in respect of Mr Tam, the Judge failed to direct the jury as to his cause of death, that Mr Tam had provoked the applicant, and that Mr Tam had attacked the applicant who had then merely acted in self-defence.

23. Thirdly, in respect of Madam Tong and the two daughters, that Judge had failed to direct the jury as to their causes of death and that the verdicts of murder on counts 2 and 4 (in respect of Madam Tong and Tam Hui-ying respectively) were inconsistent with the verdict of manslaughter on count 3 (in respect of Tam Hui-man).

24. Fourthly, the Judge erred in showing the photographs of the deceased to the jury.

25. We agree with, and gratefully adopt, Mr Lee’s summary of the grounds of appeal.

Intention

26. The Judge’s directions to the jury on the law as to what constitutes murder were standard and unobjectionable directions. Insofar as he supplemented his oral directions with a handout, the contents of the handout were consistent with the oral directions. He properly reminded the jury that the written directions should not assume a status greater than his oral directions which were of equal importance.

27. It is also clear that the judge reminded the jury on numerous occasions that they were only to find the applicant guilty of murder if they were sure that the applicant had, at the time of the act or acts which caused the death of each of the deceased, the intention to kill that deceased or to cause that deceased really serious bodily harm. The issue of whether or not the applicant