25-24.
135
1.35 to 1.
That is all there is directly on the issue of intoxication.
It is a part of the case, the burden of proof of which the accused
has deliberately taken on his own shoulders, but remember it is a
side of the case which only arises if you are satisfied that the
accused caused the death of Michael Pine. If you are not so
satisfied, intoxication has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
I had not intended to take up so much of your time, and I
don't think there is anything more for me to say except that
I want again very emphatically and urgently to remind you that
if you have a reasonable doubt that the accused was the man who
brought about the death of Michael Pine, then you will give the
benefit of it to the accused. Never mind what you feel about what
We are not concerned with that
he did to the other children.
here and now. This is the only one real question Was it at
-
the accused's hand that Michael Pine met his death? If you are
not quite satisfied on that all important point, then the point of
intoxication will not matter you will return a verdict of not
guilty.
There are three verdicts:
1.
One of 'not guilty'.
2.
Or alternatively you have a choice between two
of killing by murder, or
-
Verdict
3.
Verdict of killing by manslaughter.
If there is no matter of excuse or palliation made out
then this is murder and nothing but murder, but there is one matter
of excuse and palliation which has been propounded by the Defence
and that is that the accused at the time of committing the act was
so labouring under the influence of over indulgence in alcohol
as to be incapable of forming the intent to do harm to those
children.
-
If you find short of that if you say "No, Dutch courage,
screwing his courage to the sticking point, his determination to
commit suicide, inflaming the passions which are evidenced by