Brief Legal opinion Summary of Judge Masiphas judgement. Ratio Decidendi: In a charge of premeditated murder; only one element is disputed: Dolus. Dolus Directus: The accused has claimed to the court that he had an intention to kill but only to protect himself from what he thought was a bugler. He maintains; he did not have any intention to murder the deceased. It would appear to me, in light of the above, the accuseds version of facts seems fairly reasonably true. Which fact eliminate to an extent Dolus directus as an element in dispute. The only direct intention to murder was to the imaginary intruder and not the deceased. The court has but no choice to interrogate the one more element which seems to have been a centre of dispute through out the examinations; Dolus eventualis. Dolus Eventualis: The court will first dig deep, in light of the facts, to the first leg of the element. should the accused have forseen the possibility that it could have been the deceased in the bathroom? In the circumstance of the accused; one must first question whether there was an immediate danger arising to the accused? If not, what was the accused defending himself against? Did the accused exceed the boundaries of self defence by firing such an amount of bullets to the closed door of a bathroom? As the accused entered his bedroom from the balcony, it makes no sense to the court that he had not checked whether or not the deceased was in bed, provided that there was no sign of an immediate danger arising from the scene as per the facts, the court is therefore convinced that the accused should have reasonably checked the position of the deceased and therefore forseen the possibility of the deceased been in the bathroom. Second leg: Did the accused reconcile with the possibility of shooting dead the deceased? In light of the facts; it would appear to the court that the accussed failed to take the necessary steps to realising the coordinates of the deceased, he had acted impulsively in light of what he referes to as shock. Which fact ascertains his failure to comply with the first leg of the element and therefore reconciled himself with whatever possibility there was by acting in a state of shock, which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. To an extent, a behaviour one could classify as reckless. The court is convinced that the evidence presented by both the State and the Defence, shows that the accused has complied with both the requirements of the element: Dolus Eventualis. The court is also convinced that the State did prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the necessary intention for murder (Not sure about premeditated murder?) in this instance. Decision: The accused is either guilty or very guilty. Obiter: Barry could have done better in his witness preps. The accused was too emotional, and there were a number of inconsistencies in the presentation of evidence, it could have been because of the intimidation of the public broadcast. What is the position of the law of criminal procedure in this case? Counsel for the State will win the battle but only technically. The Court also apologises for the Twitter stunts it once pulled, pardon me, in my generation, we never had such things as twitter : )
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:55:50 +0000