(5)
him guilty of murder. It is of course the appellant's intention that was relevant and that is why we say when the judge expressed himself 'If you thought that the 3rd accused knew that these weapons were being taken on а robbery but that they would not be used to do serious bodily harm', of course it ought to read 'He knew or thought that they would not be used to do serious harm'. But nevertheless taking the matter as a whole it is perfectly clear what his intention was with regard to directing the jury and the direction as a whole we find was quite clear."
"In view of the fact that this Court has found nothing in any of the grounds of appeal which have been advanced before use there are no grounds for our saying that the verdicts of the jury were either unsafe or unsatisfactory".
11.
THAT Your Petitioner respectfully submits
the judgment of the said Court of Appeal was wrong and
in particular, as the only evidence against this Appellant
was his own cautioned statement, even if the jury believed
every word in that statement be true and the learned trial
judge's Summing-up was impeachable, that would not be
enough to justify a conviction of the appellant for murder
(as opposed to manslaughter). However Your Petitioner
further respectfully submits that the whole subject of
a joint venture whose main purpose was burglary or, at
the most, robbery, should have been the subject of a much
more careful direction to the jury, especially as regards
the liability on a charge of murder for one not present
at the time, than was given.
12.
THAT Your Petitioner further respectfully
-14-