Youth Sentenced To Death For Murder Of Companion

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27796, 22 October 1955, Page 12

Youth Sentenced To Death For Murder Of Companion

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, October 21. Albert Laurence Black, aged 20, a labourer, was sentenced to death by Mr Justice Finlay in the Supreme Court at Auckland today for the murder of Alan Keith Jacques, aged 19, in Ye Olde Barn Cafe, Queen street, on July 26. The jury retired at 1.28 pan. and returned at 3J5 pan. with a verdict of guilty of murder. When the verdict was returned, Black closed his eyes, swayed forward, and was grasped by a prison warder. When asked whether he had anything to say before sentence was passed, Black replied, “Nothing, sir.” in a firm, clear voice.

The Courtroom was crowded. His Honour excused the jury from further service for seven years.

The case for the Crown was conducted by Mr G. S. R. Meredith and Mr G. D. Speight. Black Was defended by Mr R. K. Davison and Mi P. G. Hillyer. The trial lasted four days.

Black had panicked, and when the blow was struck had not intended to kill Jacques, said Mr Davison, in his final address to tne jury. The defence admitted that Black’s was the hand that struck the blow.

“But we say that the blow was struck in self-defence or on provocation,” Mr Davison said. The jury had to bear in mind that there was no duty on the defence to prove selfdefence or provocation. The onus was on the Grown to negative these two defences.

Mr Davison said that if Black was unlawfully assaulted and did not provoke it; if he had reasonable fear tnat death or grievous bodily harm would be caused by the assault; if he believed on reasonable grounds that ne could not preserve himself other than by inflicting grievous bodily harm himself, then ne would be justitied in assaulting Jacques, even if bodilyharm or death ensued.

Black told his story of Jacques punching him in the cafe and inviting him outside to continue the fight—and had the Crown proved that this aid not take place? asked counsel

Mr Davison said the evidence of witnesses in the cafe fell short at the material time in observing Jacques None saw what he did between leaving the cubicle at the back of the cafe and reaching the juke box. Black’s story was the true account of what happened. The Crown evidence had not disproved it. Assaults and provocations were not reasoned matters, said counsel. They occurred in the heat of the moment, in some passion. Mr Davison asked members of the jury to put themselves in Black s position. Black felt he had not a chance -in a fight, and believed he could not stop Jacques without some severe and drastic means. Faced with what appeared to be a desperate situation, he suddenly lunged out with his knife to protect himself. The blow itself, said counsel was a “wild sweep’’—more a blow of desperation than a calculated blow aimed to kill The pathologist. Dr F. J. Cairns, had said it was "a fluke shot.’’ If provocation caused a sudden temporary loss of self-control whereby’ the intention to do grievous bodily harm was negatived from the mind, then the crime was not murder, but manslaughter. said counsel Crown Submissions

Mr Meredith, in his address, said any doubts the jury had must ue reasonable, not fanciful. If a man stuck a dagger in another’s neck, he must have known it was likely to kill. And if it penetrated as deep as it did in this case, he must have been reckless whether death ensued or not.

Counsel submitted that if the jury believed the Crown witnesses accounts of what happened, then it could forget the defence issues of provocation and self-defence.

It was clear from wtiat both Black and the girl involved said, that the night before he had asked the girl to sleep with him, said Mr Meredith. This was before any trouble arose between him and Jacques. Obviously, when *he later found the girl and Jacques ■ together, he inunc tely thought of the possibility of Jacques cutting him out—“poaching on his preserves.” A fight began immediately after, obviously from the resentment Black felt at finding the two together. Black was obviously truculent and displaying great animosity to Jacques,” said Mr Meredith. Then later, said Mr Meredith, as Black admitted himself, Black talked about killing Jacques. This showed what was uppermost in his mind, and in what direction his thoughts were even then turning. Next day, Black concealed a knife in his pocket. The knife was unsheathed, and in a position where it was readily available. He sat in the cafe where Jacques must pass him if he wanted to go out. Tne evidence indicated that Jacques got up and leaned over the juke box, said counsel. Black got up and, standing behind Jacques ana slightly to the right, struck with his dagger.

Conflict of Evidence Traversing inconsistencies in Black’s statements to the police, Mr Meredith said these were such that the jury could not have the slightest faith in his truthfulness. There was the evidence of three persons in the cafe that Jacques did not talk to or punch Black. If there had been a punch of such force as to daze him, could this have gone unobserved? Mr Meredith said that, if the jury thought Black’s story untrue, it could forget provocation. But, he said, even before provocation could operate to reduce the charge to manslaughter, the mode of resentment displayed must bear a reasonable relationship to the provoking act. This was not the case here. In self-defence, Black was entitled to repel a blow, provided the force used was reasonable. How could repelling a blow by use of a dagger be reasonable? In consideration of any violence displayed, Mr Meredith said, a punch would not be unduly violent. It was nothing to justify any reasonable apprehension for 'Black to use a dagger to preserve himself. But if the evidence that there was no blow was believed, then there was nothing against which Black had to defend himself. “The Crown submits that this is simply the case of a violent young man who brooded to an unjustifiable degree over an affront to his self-esteem, and whose instincts prompted him to use a knife at a time when he was not provoked and not required to do so in his own self-defence,” said Mr Meredith. If the jury was satisfied beyond doubt that this was the true view, then it had only one clear duty. Mr Meredith said. His Honour Sums Up - Summing up, his Honour said that, if he expressed any view’ of the facts, it was unwillingly, and the jury w r as entitled to disregard anything he might say on the value of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. The jury itself had to judge the facts inside the framework of the law. The defence, bis Honour said, was founded on the basis that there was assault and insult in the cafe. If there was not—and this was the Crown contention—then there was no scope for either self-defence or provocation. If there was no assault against which Black had to defend himself, there was nothing to provoke a loss of <eifcontrol said his Honour. Referring to intent, his Honour said that the Crown submitted that evi dence of intent was the onlv proper inference from the incidents at the party the night before Jacques’s death Intent to kill could be deducted from the use of the knife and in the way Black used it.

Every’ man, he said, was presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of his act. He suggested that the fact that the knife thrust was a fluke blow W immaterial. The jury had to cong where Black struck, how, and

with what. From these things, it could consider whether it was proper to infer an intent to kill.

The jury* might find some confirmation in the threat made the night before, culminating in a stabbing precisely in accordance with the threat, said his Honour. The Crown said the true reason was jealousy of the girl outside the house with Jacques the night of the party, with personal hostility to Jacques implicit in it.

Dealing with the events in the cafe, the Crown suggested that the black eye suffered the night before was still acutely present in Black’s mind, and his alleged remark about it, said his Honour. The accused, however, said he did not speak to anyone. It was also suggested that there could not have been any assault or insult without persons nearby seeing or hearing it Definition of Provocation

His Honour defined provocation, with its sudden and temporary loss of self-control, which rendered a person for the moment not master of his mind. Loss of self-control was the essence, he said.

His Honour said self-defence was a matter of defence against current attack, and he. personally, could not see how there could be any selfdefence here, because the attack was over. But the jury could take the view that there was continuation of attack, in theory- , The Judge discussed at length the aspects of force and violence relating to self-defence. He said that, if the jury found Black had struck with intent to kill, then that was murder Tf it found he had acted m selfdefence. he was entitled to acquittal. If it found there had been provocation. then Black was entitled to reduction of the charge to manslaughter. He told the jury: “The case is at the footstool of your own good sense.