CO129-550-7 Rex v. Ng Loi Yuen- appeal to Privy Council 1-1-1934 - 31-12-1934 — Page 132

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