-5-
-
involved in the attack on the Deceased, whether he had the
requisite intent. We think that there was sufficient evidence
perhaps not strong evidence - to justify his being put upon his
defence.
The final point taken on behalf of the sixth Appellant is conceded by Mr. Sedgwick to be of no great weight. With respect we think it is entirely without substance. There was in the course of the summing-up a passage in which the learned judge referred to the sixth Appellant's having been a prominent figure in one group, and thereafter he referred to a fight between two gangs. It has not been necessary for us to go into the facts of this case in detail. What happened was that there was a discussion in a tea house in which the Deceased and the sixth Appellant were discussing the payment of compensation by the Deceased for some wrong alleged to have been done by him in the past.
After this discussion in the tea house there was a fight outside the tea house. What is suggested is that by the reference to the sixth Appellant's being a prominent figure in the group in the tea house the jury might have been led to believe that he was also a prominent figure in one of the gangs fighting outside. In our view the passage which is complained of was quite innocuous. It was referring to his being a prominent figure in the group in the tea house and the fact that the judge went on to refer subsequently to two groups outside the tea house was not in any way, in our view, a misdirection.
For these reasons we think that the application for leave to appeal against conviction of all these Appellants must be dismissed.
There remains the appeal of the seventh Appellant, who has appeared in person in respect of his appeal against conviction. We have heard what he has had to say and we have studied the record and it is sufficient for us to say that we are satisfied there was evidence, in the form of the statements which he made, which would justify the jury in returning the verdicts that they did. His application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
We turn then to the matter of sentence. The first and the seventh Appellants were sentenced to four years' imprisonment. It is urged that this was wrong and must manifestly have taken into account the fact that there was a murder committed in the