|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1966 |
|
|
Honest but excessive force in making a lawful arrest ordinarily produces manslaughter, not murder; 'maim' means permanent disabling.
Criminal law – definition of 'maim' – Penal Code s.5; defence of property and apprehension of felon – Penal Code s.18 and s.18A; excessive force in lawful arrest – distinction between manslaughter and murder; malice aforethought – s.180.
|
16 November 1966 |
|
An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's factual and credibility findings absent clear, specified error; appeal dismissed with costs.
Evidence — Factual findings by judge sitting without jury; conditions for reversal on appeal — misdirection, wrong matters taken into account, failure to benefit from demeanour, external evidence of untruthfulness; Civil procedure — appellate review of credibility assessments; Motor vehicle collision — negligence and burden of proof.
|
16 November 1966 |
|
Failure to conduct the statutory voir dire for a child witness requires discounting that evidence and may justify substituting the conviction.
Juveniles Ordinance s.120 — child witnesses — voir dire requirement to assess understanding of oath, intelligence and duty to speak truth — failure to conduct voir dire mandates discounting child's evidence; conviction substituted where lesser offence inevitable.
|
15 November 1966 |
| July 1966 |
|
|
Defects clauses do not oust common-law breach remedies without clear wording; costs order adjusted where litigation viewed as one action.
Building contracts – defects-discovery clause does not oust common-law damages unless unequivocal; provisional contingency sums and contract construction; oral variation and requirement for written authorisation; costs discretion — appellate review where judge failed to view litigation as whole; leave to appeal required if appeal limited to costs.
|
12 July 1966 |
|
Court increased Fatal Accidents Act damages because the trial judge undervalued pecuniary dependency and future earning prospects.
Civil procedure — Appeal on quantum: appellate interference only for legal error or wholly erroneous estimate; Fatal Accidents Act 1846 s.2 — damages limited to pecuniary dependency; assessment by annual allowances/savings and multiplier, adjusted for contingencies (remarriage, further children, premature death), estate duty, accelerated devolution and incidentals.
|
12 July 1966 |
| June 1966 |
|
|
Omission to sign judgment is an irregularity but curable; strong eyewitness and medical evidence upheld the conviction.
Criminal procedure – Judgment irregularity: failure to sign original judgment (Criminal Procedure Code s.158(1)) – curable under proviso to Court of Appeal Ordinance s.14(1); Eyewitness identification and post-mortem evidence sufficient to uphold murder conviction; alleged misdirection and discrepancies held insubstantial.
|
21 June 1966 |
| April 1966 |
|
|
Section 4 imports English authorities; death from an unlawful, dangerous felony (e.g., arson) constitutes murder despite lack of intent.
Penal Code s.4 — Interpretation: English criminal law authoritative unless inconsistent; Penal Code s.180 — malice aforethought (a),(b) exhaust felonies with intent to cause injury; felony‑murder rule — unlawful dangerous acts causing death are murder; arson of dwelling generally constitutes murder; inadvertence not a defence.
|
13 April 1966 |
| March 1966 |
|
|
Confession or admission of intent to commit adultery can amount to grave provocation, warranting reduction of murder to manslaughter.
Criminal law — Provocation — Confession or statement of intention to commit adultery constitutes grave and sudden provocation; Criminal procedure — Appeal — Where trial judge makes no adverse finding on defence facts, appellate court adopts facts most favourable to appellant; Proportionality of lethal response; Reduction of murder to manslaughter.
|
15 March 1966 |
|
Secrecy is an essential element of abduction with intent to confine; conviction under s.228 requires proof of secrecy.
Criminal law – Abduction with intent to confine – Secrecy is an essential element of s.228 – Distinction from abduction under s.226 – Insufficient evidence of secrecy (R v Siwakwi).
|
15 March 1966 |
| February 1966 |
|
|
s.13 insanity excludes diminished responsibility; incapacity to foresee probable consequences can constitute legal insanity.
Criminal law – Insanity (Penal Code s.13) – "Incapable of understanding what he is doing" includes inability to appreciate probable consequences; diminished responsibility not part of s.13 but may affect actual intent – Presumption that accused intends natural and probable consequences rebuttable – Malice aforethought is essentially subjective though objective inferences are admissible.
|
16 February 1966 |
|
Preventive killing for feared future witchcraft is not self‑defence; provocation must be sudden.
Criminal law – Provocation – suddenness required; Self‑defence – preventive or anticipatory killing not justified; Penal Code s.18 construed with English law.
|
15 February 1966 |