1. The appellant was charged with murdering Madam Yeung, with whom he cohabitated, at their home. The evidence revealed that Madam Yeung’s death was caused by multiple cut wounds and there were at least 213 cut wounds all over her body in what the forensic pathologist described as a frenzied attack. 2. The appellant admitted to killing Madam Yeung but raised the defence of provocation (“Defence”). 3. By their unanimous verdict, the jury were satisfied that the Defence did not apply and convicted the appellant of murder. Issues in this Appeal 4. The Defence is statutorily defined under section 4 of the Homicide Ordinance (Cap. 339). The appeal was concerned with the manner in which a judge is to direct a jury in respect of the objective question of the Defence, namely (assuming the defendant was provoked to lose his self-control) whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as the defendant did? 5. There are two elements to the objective question: (a) an assessment of the gravity of the provocation for the defendant in all the circumstances; and (b) whether, having regard to the actual provocation and its gravity, a person having ordinary powers of self-control would have done what the defendant did. 6. The issues in this appeal were: (a) Whether it is a misdirection of law to fail to direct the jury to form a discrete view as to the gravity of the provocation on the defendant, having the particular attributes he has, separately from and before determining whether, objectively, having regard to the actual provocation and their view as to its gravity, a person with ordinary powers of self-control would or might have done what the defendant did (“the Gravity Question”); and (b) Whether in directing the jury in relation to the objective question, it may in certain cases be incumbent on the trial judge to direct the jury that the words “do as he did” refer to the formation of an intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm rather than the precise form of physical reaction. If so, whether the present case is such a case (“the ‘do as he did’ Question”). The Gravity Question 7. The Court held that both elements of the objective question, including the assessment of the gravity of the provocation, are to be assessed objectively. This conclusion was supported by (a) the principle that the criminal law is based on a generally accepted standard of conduct applicable to all; (b) the wording and policy of section 4 of the Homicide Ordinance; and (c) the authorities interpreting that section. Accordingly, the appellant’s contention that the first element of the objective question was to be assessed subjectively must be rejected. 8. However, the gravity of the provocation may well depend on the characteristics or circumstances of the defendant. The objective test incorporates the features of the defendant that might affect the gravity of the provocation. Thus, the “reasonable man” under the objective test bears the relevant history, experiences, background, features and attributes of the defendant. 9. The Court held that the Judge’s directions, read as a whole, fairly summarised Madam Yeung’s provocative acts and words in their proper context and therefore answered the Gravity Question in the negative. The “do as he did” Question 10. This question concerned the meaning of the words “do as he did” in section 4 of the Homicide Ordinance and the Court would construe this phrase in the light of its context and purpose. As a matter of context, section 4 provides a partial defence to a charge of murder, and its statutory purpose is to excuse certain impulsive homicidal acts resulting from substantial provocation from the ultimate penalty for murder. Further, as the authorities show, there is no longer a rule of law that the mode of resentment must be proportionate in type to the provocation. On a proper construction, the phrase “do as he did” means the forming of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim and acting on that intention. 11. Where there is a risk that the jury may be misled into thinking that “do as he did” refers to the precise form of physical reaction of the defendant rather than an intent to kill, it is incumbent on a Judge to direct a jury not to pursue this impermissible line of reasoning. There was clearly a risk in the present case that the jury would have done so and the Judge’s directions on the “do as he did” question were inadequate. The Court therefore answered the “do as he did” question in the affirmative. 12. Accordingly, the Court quashed the appellant’s murder conviction and ordered a re-trial.