ཟླ
given, a verdict arising from the consideration of the evidence."
(e)
21
As Crown Counsel told you, the ambit of the crime of murder includes persons who are parties to a plan to kill or do grievous bodily harm whether they are present at the infliction of the harm or not, provided that what was done was within the scope of what had been agreed by the various participants. So that if three persons decided that somebody was to be robbed and that two of them were to go and do it and that they were to take knives and that they were to do whatever they thought necessary if they met with resistance in the way of using those knives, not only the two persons present but the third person who was part of the plan and stayed behind would be equally quilty of murder. It is a different thing, of course, if the person who stayed behind was not a party to the doing of grievous bodily harm or the killing of somebody. the actual participants went beyond the scope of what all the participants had agreed, the one who was not present would at least not be guilty of murder, he might be guilty of something else..."
If
Speaking of the wounding at the time the 1st and 2nd
accused within the said deceased hotel room, the learned
trial judge said further:
(£)
"You may think it is unlikely that all
8 of those wounds were inflicted by one person, some were on the back, some were on the front, some were on the side.. You may think it is likely that the 2 accused shared in the giving of these wounds".
(g)
"You will have to (also) decide the question whether there was provo- cation, and whether it was enough to make a reasonable man do as you think the 1st accused did."
Coming to deal with Your Petitioner in particular the
-10-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.