14
the learned judge was, with respect, wi ng not to have defined the elements of the crime. But in a case sch as. the present the failure to give that direction is so ne rly not an error at all that we think the application of the pr viso can only be considered as technically necessary. hether it t true as Lord Goddard thought (in a passage quoted by Lor. Devlin in s essay "Trial by Jury") that the jury is privileged to return a nerverse verdict if it so wishes, a verdict which would have left the accused guilty of the killing but not guilty of murder in the present case would have been
We had therefore no hesitation
not so much perverse as grotesque.
in applying the proviso.
is
For these reasons the appeal was dismissed.
Sedgwick instructed by W.K. Lore & Co. or appellant. B.T. Caird C.C. and P. Nguyen C.C. forespondent.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.