Advertisement

Hong Kong ‘milkshake murderer’ Nancy Kissel loses another appeal bid aimed at shifting life sentence to fixed term

  • High Court Chief Justice Jeremy Poon rules 55-year-old’s team presented ‘mere regurgitation’ of previously rejected arguments
  • The Michigan native, who drugged her banker husband before bludgeoning him to death in 2003, can still take matter to Court of Final Appeal

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
Nancy Kissel, seen arriving at a 2017 court hearing, on Tuesday saw her attempt to appeal rejected by Hong Kong’s High Court. Photo: Nora Tam

An American woman who bludgeoned her banker husband to death in Hong Kong 17 years ago has lost another judicial bid to challenge the authorities’ refusal to support the conversion of her life sentence into a fixed term that would see her released earlier.

Advertisement

The Court of Appeal on Tuesday ruled against Nancy Kissel, 55, who earned the nickname “milkshake murderer” after she incapacitated her husband Robert Kissel, a Merrill Lynch investment banker, with a drug-laced milkshake and bludgeoned him to death with a lead ornament at their luxury flat in Tai Tam in 2003.

But the Michigan native can still pursue her application for judicial review by seeking leave to appeal directly from the Court of Final Appeal.

Nancy Kissel is escorted to the 2010 appeal of her conviction for murdering husband Robert Kissel with a lead ornament in their Hong Kong luxury flat. Photo: SCMP
Nancy Kissel is escorted to the 2010 appeal of her conviction for murdering husband Robert Kissel with a lead ornament in their Hong Kong luxury flat. Photo: SCMP

Kissel was found guilty of murder after a high-profile trial in 2005 by a jury’s unanimous verdict that was quashed by the Court of Final Appeal in 2010, prompting a retrial that also returned a unanimous guilty verdict. The top court dismissed her application for leave to appeal in 2014.

Advertisement

She then applied for a judicial review in 2016, challenging the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board’s decision that year to refuse to make a recommendation to the chief executive to convert her sentence to a determinate one.

Her lawyers said the case raised questions of “great general or public importance” that would affect numerous prisoners serving either indeterminate or long-term sentences, and impact the board’s future practises.

loading
Advertisement