37. We turn to deal with the allegation of inconsistent verdicts. This relates to the different verdict in respect of count 3, namely that the applicant was not guilty of murdering Tam Hui-man but was guilty of manslaughter in respect of her death.
38. Inconsistencies in verdicts do not lead to convictions based on those verdicts being quashed unless the convictions are unsafe or unsatisfactory. In any event, it is well settled that a conviction will be quashed on the ground of inconsistency with other verdicts if, and only if, it can be established by the appellant that the conclusion reached by the jury was one at which no reasonable jury who had applied their minds properly to the facts of the case could have arrived. A verdict will not be one which no reasonable jury could have arrived at, if there is a rational explanation for all of the jury’s verdicts. See, HKSAR v Sham Ying Kit [2000] 4 HKC 380 at 389E-G, 390I-391C and 395C-D.
39. We are satisfied that there is no inconsistency in the jury’s verdicts between counts 2 and 4 on the one hand and count 3 on the other hand. As noted above, the cause of death of Tam Hui-man was different to that of her mother and sister. Furthermore, unlike Madam Tong and Tam Hui-ying whose heads were both covered by the applicant, Tam Hui-man’s head was not covered and, although there was evidence that her mouth had at some stage been sealed by adhesive tape, there was no such evidence in respect of the nose. As between the two daughters, there was a material difference in that the applicant put Tam Hui-ying in a nylon bag and shoved her under the bed after tying her up and prior to burying her body. The prosecution adduced expert evidence that, despite the presence of holes in it, the bag would create a confined irrespirable environment and that, given her posture and bound condition in the bag, Tam Hui-ying’s death was inevitable.
