Alo Singho v. Attorney General – sllr 1984 volume 1 page 030

In the case of Alo Singho (appellant) v. Attorney-General (respondent), the primary legal issue concerned whether the trial judge’s instruction—that an individual “intends the natural consequences” of their acts—constituted a legally binding presumption or a rebuttable presumption of fact as outlined in section 114 of the Evidence Ordinance. The sequence of events involved the appellant’s conviction for murder based on jury directions suggesting legal compulsion to infer intention from acts. The holding determined that this amounted to a misdirection on the law, as the presumption under section 114 is rebuttable and not a fixed rule of law. As a result, the conviction for murder was set aside and replaced with a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, imposing a sentence