The Runaway Verdict

Another day, another 7-8 hours spent in school trying desperately to absorb what is being taught to us.
Started on bio revision, did 3 chapters.
Tommorrow there's still that forum which I can't escape from, sighz.
Oh well, for those who watched "Let him have it!" today for GP, here's a piece I wrote about how I would defend him if I were his lawyer. I'll try to amend it soon as I think there are many holes in it, so bear with me for a while.

How I would defend Derek Bentley

1) I would not let him testify at all. It is obvious that he is incapable of answering the prosecutor’s questions competently. After all, he is mentally handicapped and therefore could not protect himself from the loaded questions the prosecutor was asking. Not having him testify may cause the jury think he has something to hide as he is afraid of being cross-examined, but that can be easily countered by the fact the events can be easily told to the court through the testimony of Craig and Fairfox, the detective, and also by pointing to the fact that Derek is mentally unfit to take the stand. After all, in this case, the truth is the best defence for Derek.
2) I would mention the fact that Derek is epileptic. Strangely enough, this was never mentioned in court.
3) The prosecution case lies on the fact that he had coerced Craig into shooting, by saying “Let him have it.” However, the fact that the phrase has a double meaning, shows reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the later actions of Derek showed that he meant no harm to the police officers. This argument was unfortunately unable to hold as Derek had contradicted himself by saying he never said such words, which threw his credibility into question. This point also furthers proves why Derek should not testify.
4) I would point out that Derek did not possess the weapon that killed PC Miles. His actions later proved that he had no intention to kill.
5) I would argue that Derek is guilty of armed robbery, maybe even accessory to murder. But willful murder is hard to accept, especially he was not the one who fired the gun.
6) Lastly, I would (in The Practice speak) Plan B Craig. That is, arrow Craig for being the cause of Derek’s actions. I can prove that Craig bullied Derek into following his actions, and given that Derek had the intelligence of an 11-year-old, he acted as an 11-year-old would, not as an adult. The night of the murder, Craig had visited Derek. This showed that Craig was in a sense, leading Derek on, goading him to commit the crime. And like any 11-year-old facing taunts, Derek did not walk away like an adult, instead he tried to prove Craig wrong. Craig had deliberately made use of the fact that Derek had low IQ, thus manipulating him. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that Derek had been influenced to a certain extent by Craig, and the greater blame should rest on Craig, who was not repentant for his actions.

Oh yah, good luck to all sec 4s having prelims. I was there before and I know it sucks but it will be all over in like 2 more months.
Just one last final note, I shall quote a part in the Practice but I forgot who exactly said it. It goes,
"Why do you do what you do, letting guilty criminals get back on the street?"
"Because I live in the hope that I set more of the innocent free than the guilty."