THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING KEUNG

CACC000478/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 478
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	CHAN WING KEUNG

----------

Coram : Hon Yang, C.J., Ryan and J Chan, JJ.

Date of Hearing : 11 January 1996

Date of Judgment : 11 January 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant was convicted after trial of murder. This is his application for leave to appeal against his conviction. He has presented in writing fourteen grounds of appeal which we have considered with care.

2. Briefly, what he states in his written grounds of appeal are that he was not satisfied with defence counsel's performance. He was also not satisfied with the prosecuting counsel. Then he went on to give his version of what happened on the day in question raising certain improbabilities in the evidence of the prosecution.

3. This morning, he reiterated the unhappy background to the matrimonial relationship between himself and the deceased, his wife. What he said to us this morning appeared to be a plea for a lenient sentence rather than an application for leave to appeal against conviction. His submissions to us could perhaps be interpreted as a plea that he killed his wife under provocation and we shall look into that aspect of the trial a little more closely.

4. The evidence in the court below was that there was serious matrimonial disharmony between the applicant and his wife which culminated in the tragic event which took place on 21 October 1994. The wife had earlier left home with her daughter but on that fateful day she returned with the daughter to the matrimonial home. The wife and the daughter then hid themselves in the toilet. Upon emerging from the toilet there was a struggle between the couple, during which the applicant hit his wife with fist and a dumbbell on the body and the head causing serious injuries from which she died.

5. The applicant's defence was that he was attacked by his wife with a pair of tongs and he reacted to the attack with what he described as a very emotional feeling. He said "I had no sense, I had this fiery rage over my eyes." It is to be noted that the applicant did not deny that he had hit his wife.

6. Upon this defence, the judge directed the jury on the issue of provocation as well as diminished responsibility. He went into some detail to explain to the jury what these legal concepts meant coupled with a careful direction on the issues of guilty intent and the applicant's emotional state.

7. In our view, the summing up of the judge could not be faulted in any way. There is nothing in the summing up which causes us concern that the verdict of the jury might have been unsafe or unsatisfactory. There is nothing said by the applicant either in his written grounds of appeal or in his oral submission this morning which causes concern. For these reasons, the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

( T L Yang )	( T J Ryan )	( J Chan )
Chief Justice	Judge of the High Court	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Applicant - in person

Mr K P Zervos of the Attorney General's Chambers for Crown/Respondent