CRIMINAL CASE NO. 86 OF 2010
There was considerable background to the killing. The deceased and the defendant were members of two separate groups of porters who worked loading and unloading vehicles within the market. About one hour before the killing occurred, the defendant had been attacked and subjected to a severe beating in the vicinity of the store where he worked by a gang of about 10 to 20 individuals led by the deceased. The deceased himself had been the main attacker.
This attack had occurred following an argument two days earlier between the deceased and the defendant arising out of a fight between two other porters, one of whom was a member of the defendant’s group, the other a member of the deceased’s group. Following the subsequent attack upon and beating of the defendant on 22 July, he had armed himself with a knife and, with a group of four or five of his supporters who were also armed, had confronted the deceased who was with a small group of his own supporters. The deceased’s group was unarmed.
The defendant spoke to the deceased about the earlier beating but the deceased did not respond to the defendant’s demands for an explanation and, instead, shouted at one or two of the defendant’s group who were mistreating one of his own supporters.
The defendant’s case, as it must have been accepted by the jury, was that he lost his self-control as a result of this further perceived slight and then chopped the deceased once on the chest. The blow severed four ribs, penetrated through the deceased’s left lung and cut open his heart. The wound extended from the deceased’s left shoulder to his abdomen. The defendant fled from the scene but was arrested two days later and admitted his role in the killing.
The verdict of manslaughter was based on the jury’s acceptance that the deceased’s words and actions in the hour or so before the killing reduced what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter by reason of provocation. Sentencing for offences of manslaughter is never easy but I bear in mind that by returning their verdict of manslaughter by reason of provocation, the jury must have been satisfied that the offence of murder in the sense of the elements that make up that offence had been proven by the prosecution.
In my view, as a general rule, an offence of manslaughter committed because of provocation is often a more serious offence than other forms of manslaughter. That is because of the existence of an intention to kill, or to at least cause grievous bodily harm to the victim.
In this case, given the nature and severity of the blow inflicted upon the deceased by the defendant, there can have been little short of an intention to kill. In my view, the offence went some considerable way towards the borderline between manslaughter and murder.
Even bearing in mind the remorse of the defendant and his being prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter at an early time, his previously good character and the degree of provocation he suffered, which I accept was significant, I am of the view that the appropriate sentence is one of 10 years’ imprisonment and the defendant is sentenced accordingly.