HIS HONOUR SUMS UP

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

HIS HONOUR SUMS UP

His Honour, beginning' his summing up, said he was conscious of the fact “that the time you have to devote to listening to me and the time you may have to devote to your own deliberations may deprive you of certain pleasures you may have had today. I am sure you will agree, however, that nothing must interfere with the due fulfilment of your duties.” Their oath as jurymen required, first, that they should 'disregard anything they might have learned about the case from any source other than the evidence put before them in the Court. He was referring in particular to the fact that this case had been much reported in the papers both before this trial and during the trial, said his Honour. It was the duty of the jurymen, as honest and responsible citizens, to use their knowledge of the world and affairs in arriving at their decision and they were entitled to bring to bear on it their common sense. The members of the jury must cast aside any feelings of pity for the dead woman, for members of her family, or for the two accused. Their function was solely to decide whether the Crown had proved its case and whether the defence of insanity had been proved, said his Honour. It had not been denied in this case—subject to the defence of insanity—that the two accused were guilty of the crime with which they were charged. Nor was it denied that they conspired to murder Mrs Parker. These admissions rendered it un-

necessary for him to warn the jury to look for sufficient’ onus of proof, as was usually done by the Judge in a murder trial. There did not appear to be any doubt in this case that the 'Crown had established its case. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof that rested upon the defence in regard to the ground of insanity was a different one, his Honour said. “It is for the defence to satisfy you that the allegation of insanity of the required kind and degree has been made out. If you cannot make up your minds on that question your duty would be to decide against the defence.” When two accused persons were tried jointly it was always necessary that the jury should consider the case of each accused separately, and to consider in regard to each only so much of the evidence as was properly relevant to that particular accused. “In this particular case there does not appear to be any need for severance of the evidence.” His Honour said counsel for the two accused had endeavoured to draw no distinctions as between evidence applicable to one accused or to the other. Dr. Haslam and Mr Gresson, asked by his Honour if he had correctly interpreted their submissions, agreed that this wasvso. < ’ The crime of murder consisted in the killing of a person “by an unlawful act, meaning to cause the death of the person killed,” his Honour coiA •l nu “There can. be no doubt that if this person’s death was caused as alleged by the Crown, it was caused by an illegal act.'” Where there wers two or more persons jointly conFu rn i ln - the commission of a crime the law did not make any distinction between them} it did not matter in this case who struck the first blow, or ha struck any particular blow. Any person who, in pursuance of a common design to commit a crime, does any act in furtherance of the commission of the design, is guilty of the crime involved,” said his Honour quoting from the Crimes Act. It was usual in murder cases for the Judge to explain the law as to manslaughter, but he saw no facts which would render it proper for the jury to treat this crime as manslaughter.

' Alternatives for Jury The gravamen of this case is the defence of insanity. If you find that i .. ? ce .. established a to your sufficient satisfaction on the evidence and Tie Probabilities of the- case .your duty ‘ be r ' turn the following verdict: Not guilty, on the ground of insanity.’ ... j? n the other hand you find : the defence not established you must bring in either a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ' a simple verdict of ‘not guilty.’ As I have explained,. counsel for the defence have already invited vou not to bring m a verdict of not guilty Your proper choice lies between guilty and ‘not guilty on the ground of insanity.’ “Under section 43 of our Crimes Act everyone must be presumed to be aa " e at . the . time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved ??. at ° nUS . that rests, on the defence. It is also laid down that no person shall be convicted of an reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render such person incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission and of knowing that such act or omission was wrong’ ” suggestion of natural r n 1S C! ? se J aaid his Honour. / the mind” was what was normally termed insanity. It was a Jence one for the — w . hat was insanity or disease of the mind. The jury 'was entitled to have the views of medical i?en on this matter'. medical .7? t ? is case y° u have the evidence the two doctors called for the deA,^ ho . have “Pressed the opinion that these two accused are insane. On the other hand you have the evidence of three doctors called for the prosecubnth ln . re ?u tta1 ’ who have sworn that th of the accused are sane and J„ r s^5 e L s - fI S m any disease of the sai< l his Honour. The learned Crown Prosecutor a few moments ago, quoting an old Latin a g. , 1 su gg e sted to you that you might well claim that these two were not w O eTi e be ed th=t f bealthy minds. I? may well be that they suffered from some extent anr? hJ tal disorder > that to some some way their minds ?uLi_ unusual and abnormal. I don’t whhm.? n /° n? Ca . n listen f this case without coming to some such conclu-

“The question remains whether this of mind does or does not dl ® ease °f the mind,’ these nni» 8 th h * words of the statute. I suppose that must be a matter on which nen^= rS J Vl lV >ft J n differ ' because it depends on the degree of mental aber- ?. nd there must be borderline cases where one man would sav this jnsamty and another would say ; that*in thiV?« anity ’’ I* may well be tnat in this case you have just that sort of picture before you: the case whFJu there Is mental abnormality which some doctors are prepared tc tors Sl a f^> a nnl nSanity hereas other doc> g*?. a . re n ot Prepared so to classify. it any h of the'?nld y ,? J J' es n 0 reflection on medical men concerned. n * ♦>,« not propose to go in detail fnsanitv Vmf n K e on u this Question of insanity. You have heard it at areal ScVo/ttwHl IUrBl UrB that the Levant JeFv« lll have ““Pressed themselves already upon your mind. . . . ff you are not satisfied that indefen y ce S ” P S aM ‘u' is the end °' ‘his aeience, said his Honour. “You nppri d’seCe’Sf K’ H° n the °‘ he r hand req^?c U s r m O Je e than°th b a e t iDSane ’ but “ insanity which is to relieve a PPPSP P froni criminal responsibility £ render? ? h e words the’act such as renaers the persdn in oue«?tinn L!nS ap ? b v* of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission of wrong" 8 Sane S o Ch ? Ct Or omissi °n was J?,rong. u Sane people are punished by and l ™„ri Cause JJ? ey hn°w the nature ?" d quality of their acts and know that their acts are wrong. If a person suffering from disease of the ndnd knows the nature and quality of the ±““<1 knows t t at “ « wrong in the footine a® stands on the same rooting as the ordinary sane person. . *' No Mystery” There is no mystery about this—-

no conflict between the medical and legal views,” said his Honour. “This is a law that has bf?en in force for many *years and one that you and I are oound to be guided by in this case. “You will observe that in addition to insanity there are two elements to be considered. It will be sufficient if the defence satisfies you* that the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act, and equally sufficient if they satisfy you that even, if the nature and quality of the act were known the accused did not know that the act was wrong. “There are therefore, two alternatives, either of which will suffice. The first is that the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act. Now that reference is to the physical quality of the act. Did they know that they were killing a woman? All the medical men who were examined on that point—that is to say Doctors MedKcott, Bennett, Stallworthy and Saville—have sworn to you that in. their opinion these accused persons did know the nature and quality of their act. Dr. Hunter was not examined oh this point. “As I have understood the case, that has not been in dispute. There has been no attempt by cross examination or by argument or in any other way to suggest to you that they did not know the nature and quality of the act, and as far as I, can see, on the evidence there is no ground upon which you could properly hold that either of the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act. “It that be the view that commends itself to you, then you have only to consider the other alternative: were they by disease of the mind rendered incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong?” said his honour. “You will observe in the first place that our Jaw does not

exonerate on ground of irresistible impluse or on the ground that a person knowing the wrongness of the act is by disease of the mind led nevertheless to commit the act. “Grave crimes are almost invariably committed by. persons knowing that they were doing wrong but nevertheless by some perversity of the mental processes are led to commit the act,” said his Honour. “In such cases the only question is, did the accused know that the act was wrong? What I have just said would require qualification in other cases . . . but so far as this present case is concerned it conveys an accurate statement of the issue.

“On this matter, also, there are four doctors who have said first that both of the accused .knew, in their opinion, that what they did was wrong in the eyes of the, law and .further that they knew that what they did was wrong according to the generally accepted moral standards of the community. . There is no doctor who has said or even suggested that either of the.accused did not know that what She did was wrong. Is there anywhere else in the evidence any material on which you can properly conclude that either of the accused did not know that the act was wrong? If not, your duty is plain: the proper verdict.is a simple verdict of guilty.” What h? had just said, said his Honour, bore on a question of fact • • • ‘‘and -on questions of fact it is your decision and your decision alone that is to prevail. . . . Two Important Words “In that connexion I ask you to consider the addresses of learned counsel,” said his Honour. Have they put before you any reasons for supposing that either of these girls did not know that the act in question was not wrong? There are two important) words in this particular phrase ‘incapable of knowing that act or omission was wrong.’ One is the word ‘knowing’ and the other is the word ‘wrong.’ As to the word wrong,’ I tell you, as a matter of law, that a person knows a thing can be wrong if he or she knows it to be contrary to the law of the land and contrary to the moral standard accepted by ordinary, reasonable members of the community. It is not sufficient to suggest that an accused person has erected some peculiar moral standard of his own. It is not permissible to say, ‘J knew this was a breach of the law and a breach of the moral code, but I thought I was above or beyond the Taw and that although it was illegal or immoral I might commit it without infringing my own code of morality.’ - That is no defence in law.

, “In considering, therefore, the word wrong in that connexion, you will accept it as including whatever is wrong m law and wrong in accordance with the moral standards which are commonly accepted in the community. “The other important word is the word ‘knowing.’ It has to be considered at the very moment of the commission of the crime. There are some forms of disease of the mind stich as may make it very difficult to tell whether at the crucial time the person in question was able to perceive things so clearly as to know that there was a breach of the law and morality. ... • “The particular type of insanity suggested m the evidence in this case does not anpear to me to be one which raises a difficulty of that kind. The four doctors examined on this question nave all told us that the two accused knew the act was wrong, in the sense of P e , ln S illegal and contrary to accepted moral standards. “Is there anything in the evidence apart from these medical views which would lead you to a different conclusion’ Have you any ground for supposing that these girls did not know the moral standards and that their act was contrary to these standards? Were their minds so confused that they did not know: or are the doctors—four of them—right m saying that they knew the act was wrong?” In his review of the evidence, his Honour quoted from the cross-exam-ination of Dr. Medlicott, who admitted knew their act was wrong t. ®® nse in which I have defined it. his Honour said. ‘’lf you accept that passage as correct, then it is your duty to conclude that both accused are guilty of the offence, and the defence of insanity is not made out.” There .was a “somewhat similar passage rn the notes of Dr. Bennett’s evidence which, if the jury accepted, .really deft them no option but to hold both accused guilty of murder, as the required degree of insanity had not been proved.’’ The members of the jury might read

| the whole of the diaries producedJb ing the trial, “but you will prdRW ’ feel that you have, from - counsel, received a sufficient picflD of the documents.” . His Honour concluded his suffimM* □ up at 12.40 p.m. The jury returned® 1 2.55 p.m. with their verdict offqflw * against each accused. E Age of Accused His Honour said to counsel that Dre ■' might recall that he drew their affisf; “ tion to the fact that the questionw J the ages of the accused might I It had now arisen. This concerned ’ sentence of a young person conrjcW J of murder. 1 Mr Gresson said there had been d# ’ evidence by Mrs Hilda Marion Hufajfa ; mother of Juliet Hulme. that JW ; Hulme was well under tile age <rf ft -■ 1 Dr, Haslam said that Mr Riepw bre ■ given evidence that Pauline Part*- ; was under 18. Mr BroWn, speaking under strere . said he did not think the pared* ■ , should be recalled to give evidene®re-' the ages of the girls. The relevtot J matter formed part of the evidence? 1 re His Honour said it was a quertffife : whether it was a matter for the jUtZj ■ or for the Court. It was a question ; fact. He proposed to submit to tM jury to decide on the evidence and then submit his own decision. “Mr Foremap and gentlemen, ftt; view of the verdict it is required Jo be ascertained if each prisoner is under the age of 18.” said his Honour, ■jj,... now ask you to answer it in regW* to each prisoner on the evidence, rfe? ker’s father has sworn to her age.'MJ/ Hulme has sworn to the age of h* daughter and according to that she » well under the age of 18. I suggest, Mr Foreman, you may be able J answer that issue after a short confer* ence with your fellow jurors in the box.” The foreman consulted the other jurors and then said they found both Parker and Hulme to be under ML , ‘ ‘Not knowing whether that is a ter properly for the jury or forffiE, Judge, I now add my own decision that both prisoners are under 18,” his Honour. The Registrar (Mr G. E. Pollock/ then addressed each prisoner in turt‘‘You have been indicted for the murder of Honora Mary Parker to whicn indictment you pleaded not guilty PJJ; placed yourself upon a jury of y°° r country. That jury has found you guilty. Have you anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon you according to law?” Dr. Haslam, on behalf of Parker, said he had no further submissions JP.' make. Mr Gresson, on behalf of said there was nothing he could ag-~' to what was already in the evideßg-/ His Honour: Prisoners at the bar.Jre? sentence to be passed on you is sj? fixed by law. namely Section 5 Capital Punishment Act. 1950. .• W,.. sentence of the Court is a sentence .W detention during Her MajOWP i pleasure.