TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 164

-121-

of retaliation was proportionate to the provocation. Where the instrument is a deadly instrument Members of the

Jury, the provocation should be more than normal, should

be greater than if the instrument is not a deadly

instrument. And the Crown also asks was that provocation

sufficient to deprive the accused, or to deprive a reasonal1

man of his self control? Counsel addressed you on that.

Is that how a reasonable person would react to a

provocation where someone has accused you of stealing

her peanut money. The Crown is asking you to say that

that could not deprive a reasonable man, and that couldn't

deprive the accused. Defence says I sometimes get giddy,

I am mentally retarded, and the psychiatrist tells you

that such a person may be more apt to lose his self

control than a normal person. So Defence is saying under

those circumstances you can see why he lost his self

control, but it is for you Members of the Jury to decide

if that is so, if the provocation was sufficient to deprive

a reasonable person of his self control. If you find then

Members of the Jury there is this provocation, that he

lost his self control, that any reasonable person would

have lost his self control and that this accused infact

lost his self control, and if you think that the instrument

was not an unreasonable instrument in the circumstances,

Members of the Jury, that provocation will reduce the

charge from murder and you will have to convict him of

manslaughter and not of murder. The burden as I say remains

with the Crown to prove that absence of provocation.

Members of the Jury, I think I have talked long

enough,

have covered all the grounds for you, and I told

you that in criminal cases the burden remains with the

10

5

15

20

25

30