Page:HKSAR v. Xu Shengqi (CACC 463-2010).djvu/9

Rh had the requisite intention was therefore put squarely before the jury as a main issue on each of the four counts.

28. It is clear from the jury’s verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4, which were each unanimous verdicts, that they rejected the defence case in respect of each of Mr Tam, Madam Tong and Tam Hui-ying and that they were sure the applicant had the requisite intention for murder when he killed each of them.

29. There is no issue concerning the manslaughter conviction on count 3 in respect of Tam Hui-man. The applicant himself asserts in his grounds of appeal that he should have been convicted of manslaughter in respect of both counts concerning the two daughters. We have no doubt that, if the killing of Tam Hui-man was not murder, it was manslaughter. It was an admitted fact that the applicant killed her and there can have been no doubt that his actions which brought it about were intentional and unlawful and obviously dangerous.

Mr Tam: cause of death, provocation and self-defence

30. We are satisfied that there was no issue as to the cause of Mr Tam’s death and the Judge correctly directed the jury that the cause of Mr Tam’s death was multiple stab wounds.

31. The Judge correctly directed the jury that, in respect of Mr Tam, the real issues were provocation and self-defence.

32. As to provocation, we are satisfied that the Judge’s directions, orally and in writing, were correct and adequate and it is clear that, by their verdict, the jury rejected the defence of provocation. They were entitled to do so.