Tailor man’s’ lawyer continues...

Mc Cammon agreed with Conway on this point, stating that “fuller” directions could have been given to the jury on the issue of manslaughter in the absence of which the appellant may indeed have been robbed of a verdict of guilty for the lesser count if the jury so found.

In the circumstances, she submitted that the appellate court, as it has the jurisdiction to do, can substitute the finding for murder for that of manslaughter.

The Assistant DPP agreed that provocation did arise and ought to have been frontally put to the jury, even as she concurred with Conway that there seemed to be a gap in the trial judge’s summation as to how the issue of provocation was dealt, if at all.

Like Conway, Mc Cammon observed that while Justice Barlow during the trial dealt with the issue of self-defence and had said that the issue of provocation would be specifically dealt with in the summingup to the jury it was not.

Having heard the submissions from both sides, the matter was adjourned to November 30th for reports on the aspect of the judge’s summation in a bid to ascertain to what extent provocation was dealt with—if at all.

The defence submits that the judge erred by not marshalling the facts or evidence that may have yielded a finding of manslaughter by reason of provocation and that the jury was not alerted by the judge of the facts or evidence that they may consider in deciding if provocation was an issue.

Singh, called ‘Tailor man’ or ‘Tailor’ had been unanimously convicted by a jury of the September 2nd, 2014 murder of Mahaica farmer Balkissoon, at Helena Number Two, Mahaica.

The incident was said to have stemmed from an argument the two men had following insults hurled by Singh regarding Balkisson’s wife.

The appeal is being heard virtually before the appellate court. Singh joins in like manner from the Sibley Hall Prison at Mazaruni.