TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 166

-123-

quite openly, and it is a situation where the accused

suffered from an abnormality of the mind, such that he

does not have the necessary criminal intent to do the act

of which he is accused.

Now it is the Crown's duty at all times to prove the

intent, the malice aforethought. It is an essential

ingredient in the crime of murder, so the burden will

be for the Crown to prove that the accused had the

necessary intent. Members of the Jury, I don't propose

to say anything more regarding the automatism or the

provocation. This is a situation where you have to look

at all the facts. The facts of the case start with the

lady allegedly accusing him a week or so before, up

to the very day of the incident.

The accused says

on the very day in the room she accused him again. The

Crown has been urging that this has been going on all

along and so the accused was planning; it is a premedi-

tated affair, he had it all planned out.

Defence is saying

that it was not planned, I was accused of it

throughout the week, but I kept my control, but I lost my

control on the morning when I went to buy my stout.

Those are the issues of fact and you have to determine

which way you see the story.

So Members of the Jury, I leave that with you and as

I just indicated the burden falls to the Crown. Even in

the case of provocation the burden is for the Crown to

prove the absence of provocation. As far as the insanity

is concerned, the Defence has to prove to you on a balance

of probabilities that there is this defect of reason

through disease of the mind, but Members of the Jury, I

think that I have kept you long enough and lest I should

confuse you I will ask you to consider your verdict.