CROWN’S FINAL SUBMISSIONS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27441, 30 August 1954, Page 12

CROWN’S FINAL SUBMISSIONS

“Your duty is to consider the evidence and judge it fairly and properly, honestly and in accordance with the oath you have -taken. All the Crown asks is that you return a true and honest verdict,” said Mr Brown, addressing the jury. “In the dock are two young girls charged with what can only be described as a very dreadful crime.

“Before you can convict them of murder—apart from the question of sanity or insanity—you must be satisfied that they intended to kill Mrs Parker and in fact did kill her,” said Mr Brown. “If you are satisfied, after

a close and conscientious examination of the evidence, that they Mid kill Mrs Parker you must go where the evidence leads and you must give a conscientious decision ho matter what the result to tee accused may be. “As tee defence has admitted, it is impossible for you to bring in a verdict other than that of guilty—that is apart altogether from the question of sanity or insanity,” said Mr Brown. “You should hot be swayed by counsel on either side but should judge the matter solely on the evidence you have heard in Court.* “The onus of proof is on the Crown and, I submit, that onus has been discharged. It has never been . disputed that these girls murdered Mrs Parker. So tee only question you have to deal. with is their sanity or insanity, and tee burden of proving that' is on the accused. You must not allow feelings to enter into it. •Sentiment has no part in British justice.

“I agree that the girls in the dock are in a dreadful position and in the course of the trial many nasty things have been said about them,” said Mr Brown. “No matter how hard-hearted one may be one can not but help pity them. But you must not allow that to sway your judgment. On the other hand, you may feel pity for Mr Rieper —he is one in this case who does deserve sympathy—but you must not let teat influence you against the accused. “Girls are Sane”

“I tell you, and I submit that it has not been contradicted, that both doctors for the defence have said these girls are sane and not insane,” said Mr Brown. “Mr Gresson has commended the defence witnesses and 1 made slightly disparaging remarks about the Crown medical witnesses. Mr Gresson referred to Dr. Medlicott’s mental honesty and referred to his doubt about a statement until after he had gone back through his voluminous notes. Mr Gresson said that Dr. Medlicott did not retract anything. But Dr. Medlicott did in fact retract that statement. He did not say he was mistaken though until I questioned him. His retraction was not a voluntary one. “Mr Gresson said that Doctors Stallworthy, Hunter and Saville were servants of the Crown and the inference is that they would not be so independent as the defence doctors,” said Mr Brown. “It is a half truth, in this respect, that it left out of account that when they went into the witness box they swore to tell the truth and when they examine an accused they do so not for the purpose of giving evidence at a trial but because they wish to satisfy themselves of the mental condition of an accused. Indeed, the very fact that they are employed by the Crown gives them an opportunity no other psychiatrist has of gaining the maximum experience in mental disease. I submit that their evidence is of greater weight and more worthy of acceptance than that of any other psychiatric evidence that can be brought by the defence. “I examined the two debtors for the defence in a way that has been termed relentless,” said Mr Brown. “But it was my duty to do so for I have got to find the truth. And the truth of the matter is that these girls are sane, and sane by all standards.” His Honour: That is not quite right. Dr. Medlicott and Dr. Bennett adhered to the view that there was disease of the mind by medical standards. “That is so. your Honour,” said Mr Brown. Continuing his address to the jury, Mr Brown said: “Did these two doctors not wriggle, overstate and .understate over and over again under crossexamination? One example was the extraordinary statement by Dr. Bennett about the girls’ use of the word ‘moider’ instead of murder. He did not know that moider is a slang term for murder. He said they used it for a fancy name and it had not the ugly significance* of murder. I asked him about another play on words. The girls called Mr Perry ‘Mt Bloody Perry’ and the doctor said it was a change of Perry’s Christian name, Bill. But he did not seem to realise that it was the substitution of an ordinary, decent word by an ugly one. “I submit, Mr Foreman and gentlemen of the jury, that you will say to yourselves: ‘lf that is the • standard of the doctor’s reasoning we. must be very doubtful if his opinions are entitled to very great weight.’ Dr Bennett did not give his evidence in the way evidence is usually given in a Court of law,” said Mr Brown. “He appeared to have his speech to you written out and seemed to refer to it. He was corrected on one occasion on his use of the word ‘final.’ He said the murder was final proof of insanity. When cross-examined he saifi he had not used the word. But he had used it, as the record showed and as his Honour’s own note showed. I leave it to you, the jury; to judge. You are men of the world and of common sense.

Cross-examination Recalled “Now let me bring you to this. The doctors called by the defence agreed entirely with the most important conclusions come to by Dr. Stallworthy, Dr. Hunter, and Dr. Saville," said Mr Brown. “Dr. Stallworthy, in his evidence, said that, from all. the information he had gained he had no doubt that both-accused knew the nature and quality of their act and they knew it was against the moral Code of the community. He said there was nothing to lead him to believe that they were insane at the time they killed Mrs Parker. Now I turn you to Dr. Medlicott’s evidence. I asked him: "Did they know what they were doing?’ His answer was: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘And they knew the nature and quality of their act?’ His answer was: ‘They did.’ I asked: 'Did they know the law of the country?’ His reply was: ‘Yes.’ I then asked him: ‘Did they know their act was wrongs accdrding to the law?’ The doctor saw he was in a .spot and he said: ‘Thev knew, but they did not recognise the law.’ I put the question to him again and he said: ‘They knew it was Wrong in the eyes of the community.’ That is precisely what Dr. Stallworthy and Dr. Saville said,’* Mr Brown said.

“Dr. Bennett would not answer yes or no to questions. He always wanted to qualify it in case he might be shown to be wrong,’’ said Mr Brown. Dr. Bennett, in reply to his Honour, said m more roundabout words what Doctors StallwGrthy and Saville said for the Crown. That was that the accused knew that what they did was against the moral standards of the community, though he added that it was not against their own moral standards. It is impossible for you, the jury, to have any doubts about it that the conclusions reached on the mental condition of the accused by both the witness for the Crown and |he defence is the same. “In the course of the trial you have learned a great deal about these young people in the I won’t give you the list of things showing they are depraved. You have already heard it,”-said Mr Brown. “Notwithstanding their depravity they are not insane. The evidence prbves that these two young people have most unhealthy minds, blit the unhealth is badness and is .not insanity at all. “I will conclude with the words I

used '•t the opening of this trial*l said Mr Brown. “This plainly was a; coldly, callously planned and premedi-, tated murder committed by two highly intelligent and perfectly sane but precocious and dirty-minded gials. Now I add: And who have been proved to have been sane at the time they killed Mrs Parker. They are not incurably insane. My submission is they are incurably bad.”