Supreme Court GUILTY OF ASSAULT

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30076, 9 March 1963, Page 18

Supreme Court GUILTY OF ASSAULT

Major Charge Fails

Harold John Beams, aged 20, a truck driver, was found not guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday of assault with intent to commit rape, but guilty of common assault. He pleaded not guilty to both charges. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded him in custody for sentence on March 15.

Mr C. M. Roper and Mr N. W. Williamson, appeared for the Crown. Beams was represented by Mr B. J. Drake.

Giving evidence, the girl involved, aged 19, said that while she was at a dance at the Spencer street hall the accused asked her for a dance, and she partnered him for the rest of the evening. She agreed to let the accused taka her home. After she had told the accused that he appeared to be taking the wrong route, he stopped the car near the river at the foot of the hills and began to kiss her. He then tried to force her down on the front seat, and after they had struggled, tried to drag her out. He told her he wanted to have intercourse with her. As she tried to get away, the accused tripped her and she fell on the ground. After another struggle, the accused said he would take her home, but as they were driving along she again noticed they appeared to be going in the wrong direction. Outside the Princess Margaret Hospital, she jumped from the car and ran to the orderlies’ lodge.

When Detective SeniorSergeant J. Nancarrow was called by the Crown to give evidence, Mr Drake objected. He submitted that the statement made by the accused to the police should not go before the jury. His Honour dismissed the jury and heard evidence and legal argument for four hours and a half, and Anally rejected the statement as evidence. No evidence was called for the defence when the jury returned. Addressing the jury, Mr Drake said that all that happened on the evening did not indicate that the accused wanted to have intercourse regardless of the girl’s wishes. There was some doubt as to what happened in the car and outside it, and it was quite evident the car was almost at a stop when she jumped out. Mr Drake said there was only the girl’s evidence that she had been struck on the jaw. Evidence which had been given of bruising and abrasions did not show there had been intentional application of force.

DRIVER FINED £5O Licence Cancelled For Year “This was a thoroughly bad piece of driving. I am not interested in hearing submissions of bad luck at ail,” said Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday when Brian William Hardie, aged 24, a workman (Mr J. G. Hutchison), appeared for sentence on a charge of negligent driving causing injury to Valerie Ann Sutherland, aged 22. The jury made a strong recommendation for mercy when it found Hardie guilty last week. His Honour said that he bore in mind the jury’s strong recommendation for mercy, and he had made up his mind that this was not a case where the Court needed to consider imprisonment. Mr Hutchinson submitted that the case was not one of grossly bad negligence. “I submit there was a greater degree of misfortune or bad luck involved. . . .” His Honour: It was a thoroughly bad case. I agree that it was not as bad as several we have had here recently, but I repeat, 1 am not going to hear arguments about misfortune. His Honour said he felt the jury’s verdict was right. He was pleased to note the good record of the prisoner, and he accepted that he had already suffered as a result of the accident His Honour fined Hardie £5O, in default three months’ imprisonment, and cancelled his driving licence for a year.