APPEALS FAIL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 266, 10 November 1933, Page 5

APPEALS FAIL.

THREE N.S.W. KILLERS.

LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED.

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER,

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, November 3.

The Court of Criminal Appeal has had to consider within the last few days the question of remitting or reducing sentences imposed on men who are admittedly guilty of taking life by violence. In each ease the judges have decided that, so far as they are concerned, the law must take its course.

One case is that of the Cessnock murderer, Eric Jones, who deliberately shot his wife because, after suffering brutal treatment from him, she had refused to return and live with him. There was every evidence of premeditation, as Jones had told his sister that he meant to kill his wife, and in reply to her warnings he had answered that he would not be hanged, but would only be sentenced to imprisonment for a few years. At the trial, counsel for Jones put in a plea of abnormal mentality, arguing that Jones had suffered from rheumatic fever and from epileptic seizures, which had deranged his mind. The Court held that the evidence produced in support of this plea had broken down under crossexamination. But Jones' counsel appealed on the ground that there was evidence of "automatism," which made Jones no «longer responsible for his actions.

"Automatism." A good deal has been heard about "automatism" of late in murder trials, and the plea generally indicates a very superficial and inadequate knowledge of criminal psychology. In this instance, however, the acting-Chief Justice, Sir John Harvey, and Mr. Justice Halse Rogers made very short work of this. argument. The latter had previous experience of this plea to help him, and, as it had succeeded in a case which he described as "one of the most gross murders you could imagine*" lie was eyi-

dently determined to save justice from being eluded again. So Sir John Harvey said, in this Cessnock case, "Jones knew what he was doing right up to the moment he fired the revolver, and he knew immediately afterwards what he had done. All .this he admitted to the constable, but because he said that he was not conecious of having fired the shot the plea of 'automatism , is raised in his favour." Such a suggestion, said the Chief Justice, was "a wild hypothesis" which could carry no weight with the Court, and the appeal was therefore dismissed.

1 The other case which the Court considered was that of Wallace and Newlyn, who were aentenced some months ago ' to life imprisonment for shooting John j Rowland. This was described at the j time as "the most outrageous highway killing for a decade." Rowland, a prosperous and respected young man, was going home from a Masonic gathering when he was waylaid near Bondi and ruthlessly shot down. The jury allowed themselves to be convinced that the accused men did not know that the revolver was loaded, that they only meant to threaten Rowland, and that the gun exploded accidentally. And eo—in spite of the fact that these two men had robbed two other victims shortly before, after threatening them with a revolver — the jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter. Mr. Justice Street made no attempt to conceal his amazement when he heard the verdict; and evidently thinking that the prisoners were lucky to have escaped the majpr charge, he imposed a life sentence. Now they have appealed against the sentence on the ground of "undue severity."

"It Was Muraer."

There again Sir John Harvey, supported unanimously by Mr. Justice Halse Rogers, displayed both courage and common- sense in dealing with the appeal. In his opinion Mr. Justice Street "might well have directed the jury much more 6tror.gly againet the accused." The jury must have thought that "there were circumstances which justified the reduction of the charge to manslaughter," but the Chief Justice confessed that he had no idea what those circumstances were, and in his opinion "it was a case of murder."

"The judge," 6aid Sir John Harvey, "was not in error in imposing life sentences." So there the matter stands. But the Attorney-General has admitted that till the Crimes Act is amended, there will always be a danger that murderers may escape with a verdict of manslaughter.