A 28-YEAR-OLD Montrose man was yesterday convicted of killing one of his neighbours by a jury at the High Court in Forfar.

Norman Mackay, who stood trial on a charge of murder, was found guilty by a majority of the lesser charge of culpable homicide. He had denied assaulting Fraser Scott Riach in Christies Lane, Montrose, on October 29, striking him on the body with a knife and murdering him.

He also denied assaulting Jonathan Simmons-Riach and striking him on the body with a knife to his injury and permanent disfigurement, and the jury delivered a majority not guilty verdict on that charge.

Defence QC Ian Duguid had lodged a special defence of self-defence on behalf of Mackay, stating that he had been threatened and assaulted by Jonathan Simmons-Riach and his father Fraser Scott Riach.

The court heard that all three were living in Christies Lane at the time and there was a history of ill-feeling between Mackay and the other two men.

Mackay maintained to police that he had been threatened, to the extent that he was always watching his back, and said that he had the knife on the evening of the fatal confrontation for protection.

Before inviting the jury to retire and consider their verdicts, Lord Kingarth told them, “It would be quite wrong to think that because someone has tragically lost his life you must find somebody criminally responsible.”

An assault involved a deliberate and unjustified attack, he told the jury. Any injuries caused by accident or mischance did not amount to assault. In addition, the law accepted that in certain circumstances a person could take action against another person in self-defence and such actions would not be unlawful, even if they resulted in the death of another person.

However, certain factors must be considered when looking at the issue of self-defence, Lord Kingarth continued.

An accused must have a genuine and reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger, there must be no means of escape or other action reasonably open to him and he must not use excessive force.

It would be wrong to weigh those matters in too fine a balance, he went on, as the law recognised that when dealing with fast-moving events, where emotions may be high, allowance must be made for the heat of the moment, excitement, fear and agitation.

If the jury accepted that the accused acted in self-defence they were bound to acquit him. If they did not find that he had acted in self-defence, they could consider the issue of provocation.

Such provocation must have been immediate and substantial, have involved some loss of self-control, and his reactions must not have gone clearly beyond what an ordinary person would have been liable to do in the same circumstances.

If the jury found that there had been an assault on Mr Riach but there had been provocation, or they felt that Mackay had not had the necessary frame of mind for murder, the appropriate verdict would be one of culpable homicide.

Lord Kingarth added that if the jury wished to convict Mackay of the assault on Mr Simmons-Riach they should delete the words “and permanent disfigurement” as there was insufficient evidence to support that part of the charge.

After the verdicts, the court heard that Mackay is currently in custody, serving the unexpired portion of a 12-year sentence imposed at the High Court in Edinburgh in 1995.

That sentence was imposed for an attempted murder committed by Mackay when he was 17 and absent without leave from the army.

Lord Kingarth deferred sentence to the High Court in Edinburgh on October 14 for a background report and Mr Duguid reserved his plea in mitigation until then.