CO129-584-14 Commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. Includes 9 photographs depicting- [CN 3-42] Commutation of... 22-12-1939 - 17-9-1940 — Page 39

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

title Mr. Macnamara has called the defence of self-defence.

It is not self-defence. Self-defence is a perfectly good defence for anyone for instance, if you are attacked by a man you may defend yourself. You must retreat first as far as you can but when you cannot get any further without danger to life and limb you are entitled to strike back, but you must match force with force.

If you believe the accused's story that because his younger brother had struck at him and had inflicted this comparatively trifling wound on the palm of the hand he is entitled to say "It is my turn now, and I am going to hit him" and then he inflicted these four blows on the head; then the best you can say is "not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter." There can be no lesser verdict.

There is your case. I am not going to insult your intelligence by taking you over the evidence. You have heard all the evidence today and it is fresh in your mind. If you accept the story told by the widow and the son, backed as it is in a number of essentials by the accused's own story about the motive for hatred of his younger brother which he had, which on his own showing he had, then there can be one verdict and one verdict only he is guilty of murder.

If you are unable to accept that story and you will throughout bear in mind what both Mr. Macnamara and Mr. Murphy have told you so clearly, it is the paramount duty of the Crown to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt. If you are unable to accept these two witnesses' evidence and you believe the story told by the accused man that both of them lost their temper, that there was a row - that the deceased man was disarmed and thereafter rendered harmless and knowing he was disarmed the accused said "It is my turn" and then struck at him, you may say he is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Edit History

2026-06-18 00:51:01 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

39 title Mr. Macnamara has called the defence of self-defence. It is not self-defence. Self-defence is a perfectly good defence for anyone for instance, if you are attacked by a man you may defend yourself. You must retreat first as far as you can but when you cannot get any further without danger to life and limb you are entitled to strike back, but you must match force with force. If you believe the accused's story that because his younger brother had struck at him and had inflicted this comparatively trifling wound on the palm of the hand he is entitled to say "It is my turn now, and I am going to hit him" and then he inflicted these four blows on the head; then the best you can say is "not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter." There can be no lesser verdict. There is your case. I am not going to insult your intelligence by taking you over the evidence. You have heard all the evidence today and it is fresh in your mind. If you accept the story told by the widow and the son, backed as it is in a number of essentials by the accused's own story about the motive for hatred of his younger brother which he had, which on his own showing he had, then there can be one verdict and one verdict only he is guilty of murder. If you are unable to accept that story and you will throughout bear in mind what both Mr. Macnamara and Mr. Murphy have told you so clearly, it is the paramount duty of the Crown to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt. If you are unable to accept these two witnesses' evidence and you believe the story told by the accused man that both of them lost their temper, that there was a row - that the deceased man was disarmed and thereafter rendered harmless and knowing he was disarmed the accused said "It is my turn" and then struck at him, you may say he is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Baseline (Original)

39 title Mr. Macnamara has called the defence of self-defence. It is not self-defence. Self-defence is a perfectly good defence for anyone for instance, if you are attacked by a man you may defend yourself. You must retreat first as far as you can but when you cannot get any further without danger to life and limb you are entitled to strike back, but you must match force with force. If you believe the accused's story that because his younger brother had struck at him and had inflicted this comparatively trifling wound on the palm of the hand he is entitled to say "It is my turn now, and I am going to hit him" and then he inflicted these four blows on the head; then the best you can say is "not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter." There can be no lesser verdict. There is your case. I am not going to insult your intelligence by taking you over the evidence. You have heard all the evidence today and it is fresh in your mind. If you accept the story told by the widow and the son, backed as it is in a number of essentials by the accused's own story about the motive for hatred of his younger brother which he had, which on his own showing he had, then there can be one verdict and one verdict only he is guilty of murder. - If you are unable to accept that story and you will throughout bear in mind what both Mr. Macnamara and Mr. Murphy have told you so clearly, it is the paramount duty If of the Crown to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt. you are unable to accept these two witnesses' evidence and you believe the story told by the accused man that both of them lost their temper, that there was a row - that the deceased man was disarmed and thereafter rendered harmless and knowing he was disarmed the accused said "It is my turn" and then struck at him, you may say he is not guilty of murder but guilty of anslaughter.

2026-06-18 00:51:01 · Baseline

View content

title Mr. Macnamara has called the defence of self-defence.

It is not self-defence. Self-defence is a perfectly good

defence for anyone for instance, if you are attacked by

a man you may defend yourself. You must retreat first as

far as you can but when you cannot get any further without

danger to life and limb you are entitled to strike back, but

you must match force with force.

If you believe the accused's story that because his

younger brother had struck at him and had inflicted this

comparatively trifling wound on the palm of the hand he is

entitled to say "It is my turn now, and I am going to hit

him" and then he inflicted these four blows on the head; then

the best you can say is "not guilty of murder but guilty of

manslaughter." There can be no lesser verdict.

There is your case. I am not going to insult your

intelligence by taking you over the evidence. You have heard

all the evidence today and it is fresh in your mind. If

you accept the story told by the widow and the son, backed as

it is in a number of essentials by the accused's own story

about the motive for hatred of his younger brother which he

had, which on his own showing he had, then there can be one

verdict and one verdict only he is guilty of murder.

If you are unable to accept that story and you will

throughout bear in mind what both Mr. Macnamara and Mr.

Murphy have told you so clearly, it is the paramount duty

If of the Crown to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt.

you are unable to accept these two witnesses' evidence and

you believe the story told by the accused man that both of

them lost their temper, that there was a row - that the

deceased man was disarmed and thereafter rendered harmless

and knowing he was disarmed the accused said "It is my turn"

and then struck at him, you may say he is not guilty of murder

but guilty of anslaughter.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.