Judge’s charge not deficient to render murder conviction unsafe

Criminal law – appellant, having been convicted of murder, and having unsuccessfully appealed, now seeks number of alternative reliefs – whether points of law arise which should be certified for consideration of Supreme Court pursuant to s.29 of Criminal Justice Act 1924 – whether judgment of this court addressed important point in the appeal, namely, whether trial judge should have charged the jury specifically that a person may have the intention to commit a serious injury yet still be in position to avail of defence of provocation – counsel for defence observed in the requisitions that the judge had dealt with the matter “fairly” at trial – whether defence could raise point not taken at trial on appeal – no breach of natural justice or fair procedures in the appeal hearing – no jurisdiction to set aside or amend the court’s earlier judgment – court not required to address every issue raised – although judge’s direction to jury in some aspects could have been better worded, charge as a whole was not deficient – no point of law of exceptional public importance which it is desirable to clarify in the public interest.