Supreme Court ATTEMPTED RAPE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30055, 13 February 1963, Page 10

Supreme Court ATTEMPTED RAPE

Man Found Guilty

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Edward Frank Hughes, aged 30. a machinist, guilty of attempted rape at Hinds on October 5 last. Mr Justice Wilson remanded him in custody to February 20 for sentence.

Hughes (Mr B. J. Drake) was charged with attempted rape, or alternatively indecent assault.

In his address to the jury yesterday morning after the overnight adjournment, Mr C. M. Roper, for the Crown, said the case was unusual. The issue was whether the woman concerned consented freely, or whether she was submissive because of fear of the consequences if she was not. The woman had been cycling along the road when she was stopped on a lonely stretch by a stranger, said Mr Roper. It was no use her calling out, and if she ran, to whom could she turn? “This man, whom the woman had never seen before, came towards her carrying a knife —how was she to know if the accused was only holding the knife to frighten her?”

That the accused might have had his defences lowered by the consumption of liquor was no defence, said Mr Roper. The accused claimed that he had not realised what he had done, bint bis subsequent actions did not endorse this view. The common sense conclusion was that the accused followed the woman with the intention of having intercourse. He waylaid her. and after the incidents in the shingle pit, bolted in fright. "I submit that his subsequent actions were indicative of a guilty mind.” Defence Submissions For the defence. Mr Drake said the knife was put into the accused’s pocket, and he later dropped it on the ground at the woman's request. They then moved about five or six chains along the road and about three or four chains further into the pit. The knife was left back on the roadside. “You can’t say this woman was terrified at the time they were together in the shingle pit,” said Mr Drake. “There were no physicpl marks to suggest she had struggled. When she finally made up her mind to get away, she did so without any trouble at all.” Mr Drake said there was also the consideration that the accused might have been so affected by drink that he did not know what was going on and was unable to form the necessary intent. Summing up, his Honour said it was for the jury to decide what inference to draw from the accused's actions on the day, and his subsequent actions. It would also need to consider the evidence of the witness who saw the woman in a distressed and shocked Mate after she had walked and run more than a mile from where the alleged incident took place.