TNAG-0604-FCO40-752-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 39

C

!

6

defence, namely automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility and

provocation, and they required a careful analysis by the jury in the

light of the evidence adduced. The accused indeed may not have been

insane, but did the Crown discharge its burden of proof that the act

was a voluntary as opposed to an involuntary act to dispose of the

defence of automatism? And was the Crown's evidence sufficient to make

a reasonable jury feel sure that there was no sufficient provocation

The niceties of to deprive a reasonable person of his self control?

the defence really required a thinking jury.

THIS IS A COPY

THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN CLOSED

UNTIL .....

UNDER FOI

EXEMPTION No. 3.8 AND HC(2)