MANSLAUGHTER OF DOCTOR

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27588, 19 February 1955, Page 8

MANSLAUGHTER OF DOCTOR

Woman Colleague Sentenced IMPRISONMENT FOR THREE YEARS (New Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, February 18. Senga Florence Whittingham, aged 27, a house surgeon, was today sentenced by Mr Justice McGregor to three years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of John William Saunders on December 12, 1954. Whittingham stood trial in the Supreme Court on a charge of murdering Saunders, a 27-year-old resident medical officer at the Dunedin Public Hospital. After a six-day hearing, the jury, early on Tuesday morning, found her guilty of manslaughter. The jury recommended that the utmost leniency be extended to Whittingham, because it believed that the firearm with which Saunders was killed had been accidentally discharged.

While listening to a plea for leniency by her senior counsel (Mr A. J. H. Jeavons), the prisoner showed no signs of emotion. She kept her head bowed throughout the proceedings. When his Honour pronounced sentence, Whittingham raised her eyes for a second or two, but did not seem to be affected. Afterwards, she walked steadily down the steps to the cells below.

There were about 50 spectators in the downstairs gallery of the Courtroom this morning; and a few others in the upstairs gallery. The Court sat at 9.58 a.m. A minute later the Deputy-Registrar announced: “Her Majesty the Queen versus Senga Florence Whittingham. Set Whittingham at the bar.”

A moment later the prisoner mounted the steps to the dock, her coat clutched about her. The Registrar then said: “Senga Florence Whittingham, prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Have you anything to say?” Mr .Jeavons then rose to address his Honour.

“I feel that everything I can say about the position has been given ample consideration by your Honour,” said Mr Jeavons. “But there are some matters I have to put forward concerning the punishment to be imposed. “The jury came to a unanimous finding that it was an accidental happening, and that is fully shown by the nature of its finding, the rider, and the question asked during its deliberation.” Mr Jeavons paid a tribute to the jury which, he said, had come to a finding with great credit. The verdict could be interpreted as one of accident. Distressing Culpable Accident” The jurymen had carefully put aside their natural human understanding to uphold the law, said Mr Jeavons. They looked to the Court to take into account and weigh carefully human sympathy and understanding. All elements of criminality had gone from the case; it was a distressing but culpable accident, said Mr Jeavons. He did not forget that a promising life had been brought to an end, and a sorrowing family had been left, said Mr Jeavons, but he submitted that any punishment jet to come to the prisoner should be weighed against what she had already suffered, and •was yet to suffer, without the penalty from the Court. Whittingham had had two months of incarceration, and two months of mental anguish, said Mr Jeavons. She had brought shame to her parents, and sorrow to the relatives of Saunders. Her young life was irretrievably ruined. Mr H. S. Adams, the Crown Prosecutor, then rose to address Mr Justice McGregor, but before he bad said many words, his Honour interrupted to say that he did not propose to consider the merits or demerits to apportion blame between the accused and Saunders. Mr Adams replied that Saunders’s aide of-the story had not been heard. His Honour replied that he fully realised that. His Honour then addressed the prisoner. “Senga Florence Whittingham,” he said, “you have been convicted by the jury of the offence of manslaughter. “In my view, everything possible in your favour has been ably brought forward by your counsel. “Hie facts, however, are serious. A life has been taken.”

There had been premeditated acts on the part of the prisoner in securing a rifle and ammunition and loading the weapon, said his Honour. In saying that, however, he agreed that the prisoner had no intention to kill or do bodily harm. But her actions displayed a high degree of recklessness. The question of punishment had given him the greatest anxiety in his desire to give full weight to the recommendations of the jury to extend the utmost leniency, he said. He had also considered the punishment Whittingham would suffer apart from the imposition of a penalty. Reports From Psychiatrists

He could not overtook, however, the fact that a life had been taken by extraordinary, senseless, and reckless actions, said his Honour. He had received full reports from the probation officer and two psychiatrists who had examined the prisoner at his instructions. He gave full weight to the recommendation of the jury, and also took into account the age of the prisoner and her mental anguish, said Mr Justice McGregor. But he had to place in the balance his duty to the community. . In view of everything, he said, he proposed to deal more leniently with the prisoner than he would possibly have done under different circumstances.

His Honour then pronounced sentence: “Imprisonment for three years.” A minute later, the prisoner was escorted from the dock, and the Court rose.

Immediately after this, Whitingham’s parents visited her.