· 7 ·
B!
15.
only the two persons present but the third person who was part of the plan and stayed behind would be equally guilty of murder. It is a different thing,
A!
of course, if the person who stayed behind was not
a party to the doing of grievous bodily harm or the killing of somebody. If the actual participants went beyond the scope of what all of the
participants had agreed, the one who was not present would at least not be guilty of murder, he might 'be guilty of something else.
$9
*
ཎྞཾ-
.t
It is clear therefore that the vital issue as to whether or not the Petitioner knew and approved of the plan *to take/knives and "do whatever they thought necessary if they
met with resistance" was put expressly and clearly before the jury. Their decision must mean that they accepted that the Petitioner knew of and was a party to such plan.
DEFENCE
16.
+
The Petitioner gave evidence at the trial. He denied prior knowledge of the robbery and contested vigorously the truthfulness of the cautioned statement. His defence was unanimously rejected by the jury by their return of the verdict of guilty of murder..
*
i
JE PREVIOUS CONVICTION,
17.
A
The Petitioner has no record of previous conviction.
../..8