Mr Temple then urged the jury to use their “common sense and knowledge of life” to decide whether Mr Quamina had been acting lawfully while defending his home.Hmmm, let's see - three thugs break into a house while the householder is alone, armed with a hand gun and a steering lock.
He turns the tables on them (despite being twice their age) by hurling objects at them, disarming them, and walks into the kitchen, selects two knives and goes back into the hallway to find they haven't fled.
He then - outnumbered three to one, remember - fatally injures one Mr Nelson and another (unnamed so far) man in a fight lasting all of thirty seconds?
Well, I don't need to hear any more. And I suspect the jury won't, either.
Update: They didn't. The CPS are now in full retreat:
In a statement, the CPS said it was "proper" for a jury to consider the evidence and whether Mr Quamina had "exceeded reasonable self-defence".
"We based this decision on the fact that one intruder had been killed and another had been stabbed in the back.
"The jury accepted that he was acting in self-defence and found that he had used a reasonable level of force. We respect their decision."