TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 163

-120-

the accused had built up a hate and revenge over a long

period then it is possible that he was planning.

He had

plenty of time to plan it, he had plenty of time to get

cooled off. Now that will be the Crown's side of it,

but as I said the Defence says otherwise. It remains

for you to consider the two sides.

111

But the

If it happened all of a sudden down in the pool room

when she spoke to him, if you find that his story is true,

that she accused him once again when he went to get his

stout, if you accept that part of the story, then he lost

his control suddenly. But if you find that there was no

loss of any control but he went down there all prepared to

do just that, then you can't say that he was provoked.

The Crown will say that there is no provocation.

aspect that you have finally to consider is the question

of the necessary retaliatory measure taken by the accused

if you find that he was suddenly provoked by the lady when

he got into the shop. You have to consider whether the

retailation that he took is proportionate to the provocation.

You see Members of the Jury, if a person provokes you and

he has nothing, no instrument, no weapon and he provokes

you and you cuff him, slap him down that may not be an

unreasonable type of retaliation. So you have got to look

at the instrument that is used to effect the retaliation.

You have to ask yourself, assuming that there was this

provocation, and that he lost his control all of a sudden,

is the knife a proper instrument? Was that a measure of

retaliation proportionate to the provocation? The lady

10

15

20

25

had accused him by words, so you have to consider the

instrument by which this killing was done and say if you

think it was a proportionate amount of force if the measure

30