by the three previous rules that
have really been clarified only
within the last 30 years.
(ii) This last rule will also have probably to
be modified to comply with the rules
laid down by the House of Lords in
Hyam v.
D.P.P.
(1974) 58
C.A.R.
91, i.e. without an intention: (a)
to cause death or (b) to cause grievous bodily harm i.e. really serious injury,
or (c) a knowledge that there is a
serious risk of death or grievous
bodily harm, the mere fact that the
Defendant's conduct is done in the
knowledge that grievous bodily harm
is likely to ensure from his conduct,
is not by itself enough to hold him
guilty of murder.
13.
THAT Your Petitioner further respectfully
submits that the cautioned statement, in so far as it is a confession and putting the statement at its highest, only goes to show that this Appellant did not withdraw from the plan to burgle or rob at the time when he knew that knives might be used, if necessary, in emergency. From the nature and positioning of the wounds on the said deceased, there is a very real likelihood that the 1st and 2nd accused, on being confronted by the said deceased, changed their intention from threatening or even intending to do grievous bodily harm, to killing
-17-