-2
COURTAGAGGT STAJJHTGA)
AIKILA JÄITMD
This case is eminently one for a jury.
The
learned trial judge summed up the case most fairly and won with one exception, we can find no fault with that
<
summing-up.
Indeed,
In answer to the charged the appellant
stated that he did not kill the victim. This was given
∙in evidence during the course of the trial but was not
referred to in the summing-up by the trial judge.
However, it was obvious that the whole defence of the appellant was that he did not kill the victim. that he had nothing to do with the victim's death whatsoever. It is clear from the record that the jury
could have been in no doubt that that was his defence
and we think that the fact that the trial judge did not mention that the appellant denied the killing when charged with murder .cannot alter that position. We
therefore dismissed this appeal.
{
The offence took place in December 1973 and vi the trial ended on the 15th July, 1974. The reason for the long delay is that there was a previous trial at which the jury disagreed and reached no verdict. This therefore was a re-trial and in this case the jury were
unanimous in their verdict.
H.Hu (Sousae & Co.) for appellant MacDougall, D.D,P.P., for Crown/Respondent.
2.