Rurik Jutting, a British sentenced to life imprisonment, appealed for the brutal murder of two Indonesian women in Hong Kong and was hit again on Wednesday, when the Court of Appeal refused to give him the green light to refer the case to the city Supreme Court.
The former Merrill banker lost his first appeal to the murder of 23-year-old sumarti Ningsih and 26-year-old Seneng Mujiasih in an appeal court on February.
He then made a request to the same court for approval to refer his case to the Court of Final Appeal.
But on Wednesday, the Court of Appeal rejected his application, saying that Jutting's case was not a case involving "a very important and generally important legal issue"-a requirement for the court to give blessings.
However, the graduate of Cambridge University is not without a choice, because he can still apply directly to the court of final appeal for permission.
Jutting, 32, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court on November 8, 2016, after
Jury members unanimously decided he was on drugs. and alcohol-
Two women were murdered.
The killings occurred between the end of October and November 2014 at the Wan Chai apartment in Jutting.
He tortured Sumarti for three days with "increasingly brutal violence with belts, sex toys, pliers and fists" until he finally cut her throat around October 27, prosecutors said.
Five days later, he took senneng back to the apartment and cut her throat.
On the day he was sentenced, Jutting said that he was "unable and not" against the sentence, although he later appealed and reiterated that commitment.
Jutting's lawyer argued that during the trial, the presiding judge made certain mistakes when approaching the law and directing jurors, including the mental state at the time of Jutting's murder.
The lawyers then put forward the current application that the Supreme Court should address two legally important issues, the first being whether the then presiding judge correctly directed the jury, even if the characteristic of narcissism and abuse is highlighted, only mental illness is sufficient for defense.
The second question is whether the judge should have the psychiatrist summoned to the trial as an expert witness to comment on whether the spirit of mediation has been "severely" impaired, his lawyer said, this is a question to be decided by the jury.
But in Wednesday's verdict, the vice president
Justice Michael Lenn, president of the court of appeal, Mr. Andrew McRae, judge of the Court of Appeal, and Mr. Kevin zeworth, judge of the court of first instance, said that the trial judge did not make a mistake and, therefore, these are not legal issues that the Supreme Court deserves to address.
For an update on the South China Morning Post, please download our mobile app. Copyright 2018.