Tong out of his room, without meaning to injure him, that chasing
him with such a weapon was unlawful and dangerous and that the
infliction of the wound was accidental.
them.
The jury rejected this version of events and I agree with
Recommendation
The jury deliberated for over 8 hours. My guess is that they may have had some doubt as to whether the conduct of the deceased might amount in law to provocation. They decided that it did not; and I see
nothing unreasonable in their finding.
However, the conduct of Tong constituted a degree of provocation such as might have made a normal man lose his temper, although not to such an extent as could possibly justify the use of a knife.
Tong's medical history, which showed him to be bad tempered and aggressive, lends support to the view that the incident arose as a
result of his nagging at the defendant.
This was not a premeditated attack. It was done in the heat of the moment, with no other motive than extreme anger in irritating
circumstances.
I respectfully suggest that this is a case in which commutation would be the proper course and that the level of sentence appropriate to a very serious case of manslaughter would be appropriate
within the range of 12-15 years.
this might be
I have the honour to be,
Sir
Your Excellency's
opedient servant,
Denys Reburts
(Denys Roberts) Chief Justice