-117-
•
you, Members of the Jury, you can even send him to prison
for life for manslaughter but not murder", He was moving
very forcefully and eloquently. So if you find the
abnormality from this mental defect that deprives him
of having that necessary intent then we will have to
consider the question of manslaughter.
Manslaughter, Members of the Jury, is the unlawful
killing of a person without that criminal intent, without
that malice aforethought, but it is an unlawful killing.
It is a killing that is not justifiable.
It is a killing
that's not excusable. Members of the Jury, that disposes
of those three defences and we come now to the final
defence of provocation.
The same story Members of the Jury, is what you have
to work on, you see the Defence is entitled to use as
many defences they can think of, that they can find, and
you have got to think of them all, you can't say that the
Defence is going from pillar to post and they don't know
what they are doing.
The Crown has to prove its case. If there is provoca-
tion and I will explain what it is in a while the accused
cannot be found guilty of murder. You will have to find
him guilty of mansalughter, because there again it would
be an unlawful killing without the malice, because the
provocation removes any idea of malice, it is a denial
of malice.
Provocation as you heard Counsel for the
Crown, tell you at the start of the case is some act or
series of acts done, or words spoken, (in this case it has
to do with words spoken principally), spoken by the deceased
to the accused, which would cause in any reasonable person
and actually causes in that accused person, a sudden and
1:)
10
15
20
25
30