The appellants were convicted of the murder of a prison warder in the course of an escape from a prison. The evidence accepted by the trial court proved that the third appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife and that immediately thereafter the three appellants broke into the prison armoury and armed themselves with guns which they used. It was argued on behalf of the first and second appellants that even if they were engaged in a preconceived plan to escape there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were a party to the killing, that it was not proved that they agreed to or at least contemplated the use of whatever force might be necessary to effect their escape even if this involved killing or the infliction of grievous harm; it was argued that the use by the third appellant of the knife went beyond the common design to which the first and second appellants were parties.
(i) The escape could not be divided into compartments; the whole escape was part of the res gestae in the course of which the deceased was killed.
(ii) The whole sequence of events must be looked to in order to draw the correct conclusions as to the state of mind of the appellants at all relevant times including the commencement.
(iii) The plan to escape includes the acquisition of guns and the use of such guns if necessary; the only possible conclusion on the evidence was that all these appellants contemplated that it might be necessary to kill or to inflict grievous harm.