MITIGATING FACTORS
ï
8
18.
The condemned prisoner in para. 10 of his Petition
alleged that the prosecution had offered to his counsel at the trial the acceptance of a lesser plea to manslaughter. Owing to the long lapse of time since the trial this cannot
be confirmed. It is however possible that this was so, as it had been previously suggested on the prosecution file that the indictment be for manslaughter instead of murder in the
case of the Petitioner, in view of his absence from the
scene of the crime and the slender evidence of his knowledge of what the two other accused might do. The Petitioner was
not present when the killing took place, the circumstances of which may have transcended what he originally contemplated. He has no previous convictions.
PRINCIPAL FACTORS
19.
The Petitioner was the mastermind behind the robbery. He knew knives were to be taken by the two other accused
to the scene and at the very least, he must have known they would be used to frighten the deceased. If he had objected · to the knives being taken it is likely that the killing would not have occurred. Being more mature and sophisticated it is likely that he had control of the other two accused. This is also suggested by the fact that at the trial the first accused elected to give evidence, not so much for the purpose of exonerating himself, but to provide corroborative evidence that the Petitioner was not involved in the planning of the robbery.
../..9
-