HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1997

HKSAR v. SO YIU KEUNG

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
5881-EN-1997-08-29

HKSAR v. SO YIU KEUNG

HTML content

CACC000060/1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.60
(Criminal)

________________

BETWEEN
HKSAR
AND
SO YIU-KEUNG

________________

 

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P., Liu, J.A. and Yeung, J.

Date of hearing: 29 August 1997

Date of judgment: 29 August 1997

 

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

 

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted on one count of murder after trial before Stuart-Moore and a jury. He now seeks leave to appeal against that conviction. Mr. Mullick, instructed by the Director of Legal Aid, appears to assist the Court. Mr. Mullick has informed us that he is unable to find any arguable ground. The applicant in his written grounds says that the decision was unfair as too much consideration was given to the evidence of the police and his evidence was not given proper consideration. He has today also suggested that the trial judge was prejudiced against him.

2. It was the Crown case that the applicant picked up his victim, who was a 16-year-old girl, in Mongkok on the evening of 8th March 1996. Both lived in Fanling but she, apparently, had moved to the area not too long before. On the pretext of assisting of to find her way home he took her to an abandoned house. There was clear evidence that he had strangled her and stabbed her with a broken bottle and had thereby caused her death. His defence seemed to be that he had no intention to kill her or to cause her any serious harm. The nature of the injuries and the medical evidence provided ample evidence upon which the jury could properly come to conclusion that he was guilty of murder. There was no hint of any prejudice in the summing-up by the trial judge. It was impeccable -clearly outlining the law and comprehensively summarizing the pertinent facts. There is nothing which calls into question the decision of the jury. Indeed it was, in our view, given the evidence the only decision to which they could properly have come. The application is dismissed.

(N.P. Power)(B. Liu)(W. Yeung)
Vice-PresidentJustice of AppealJudge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. D.G. Saw, S.C. (D.P.P.) for the Respondent.

Mr. John Mullick assigned by D.L.A. for the Applicant.