3
(3) that if they were satisfied that there was no provocation
then they ought to consider whether the accused at the
time of the killing had the intention to kill or at
least to cause grievous bodily harm. If there was
such intention then the accused would be guilty of
manslaughter. If the intention at the time was to cause
injuries less than that of grievous bodily harm then it
would be manslaughter;
(4) that if the jury found that the prisoner had acted in
proper defence and in so doing killed the watchman he
would be entitled to an acquittal.
(5) that if the accused had acted in self-defence but in so
doing used excessive force then the killing would amount
to manslaughter; and
(6) that if the jury did not accept the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses at all, then they should find the
accused not guilty.
The jury deliberated for about 15 minutes and unanimously
returned A verdict of guilty of murder hich must be taken to mean that
they rejected the evidence of the accused and found that the accused acted
neither under provocations nor in self-defence.
In my humble submission there appear to be no redeeming features
in this case and I would respectfully submit that the law should take its
However should Your Excellency decide to commute the death
sentence to a term of imprisonment then I would, having regard to all
circumstances of this case, suggest a term of 25 years' imprisonment.
course.
12 NOV 1973
(T. L. Yang)
Commissioner of the Supreme Court.