5
!
17. Despite the mental condition described above, none of the witnesses to the killing felt that the deceased had acted in an unreasonable way on the night of the incident.
13. Although there was no prosecution evidence of any former dispute between the defendant and the deceased, in cross-examination the defendant stated that when his friends telephoned him at the premises, the deceased often refused to call him to the telephone. Apart from such incidents the defendant claimed he had had little contact with the deceased. However, he felt that the deceased disliked him. The defendant admitted that there had been a previous incident in which he had argued with a relative of the deceased who was also tenant in the premises, over the noise of the television. This occurred about half a month before the night of the killing.
19. Two witnesses gave evidence to say that as he was stabbing the deceased, the defendant-LF said to him are you dying?".
20. By its verdict the jury clearly rejected any defence of self-defence; provocation or lack of intent to kill.
PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
21.
None.
MITIGATING FACTORS
22. The defendant is aged 40 and has not been in trouble with the police before, though it is apparent on this occasion for some reason he lost his self control --Et. appears unlikely that there would be a repetition of the offence if and when the deceased were to be released.
23.
There was clearly some slight provocation in that the defendant was watching television on a hot summers evening when a younger man entered and insisted repeatedly that he turn the volume down. The defendant did not feel that the volume was too great. There had been about a month before an argument with a different relative of the grandmother about the noise caused by the defendant's television.
../..6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.