submits that the learned trial judge's failure to SO
direct the jury properly on the law of joint venture
or common purpose must of necessity constitute a grave
miscarriage of justice. The Appellant was not present
at the time the said deceased was killed and his convict-`
ion of murder is based purely on the evidence obtained
from his statement to the police as to his knowledge
that two knives (or choppers) were being taken for use
in an emergency. Your Petitioner respectfully submits
(as advised by his legal advisers) that the relevant law
on joint venture is as follows:-
(a)
(b)
Where several persons pursue a
common unlawful object, all are
responsible for that act whether
originally contemplated or not.
Therefore, if two or more persons
go out to rob and the victim gets
killed, all will be guilty of the
murder if the common design included
to kill or cause grievous bodily harm,
(1967) 2 A.C. 187.
see Mohan v. R.
Whether however, one or more of them
does an act
(i) which was not contemplated by
another; and
(ii) which is outside the common
purpose, that other person
would not be criminally liable
-15-
པཐ ནུམབ=------