SUPREME COURT Man Under Bed Convicted Of Being Rogue, Vagabond

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30442, 16 May 1964, Page 15

SUPREME COURT Man Under Bed Convicted Of Being Rogue, Vagabond

John Anthony Kearney, who was discovered by a married couple under their bed in the early hours of January 27, was acquitted by a Supreme Court jury yesterday of indecently assaulting the woman while she slept. But Kearney, aged 21, a workman (Mr R. L. Kerr) was convicted of being a rogue and vagabond in that he was found in the building at night without lawful excuse. Mr Justice Wilson remanded him in custody for sentence.

The complainant, a young married woman whose name was ordered to be suppressed, told the Court that the incident occurred about 3 a.m. on a hot Sunday night. She was asleep, wearing shortie pyjamas and only

partly covered by the bed clothes, when she awoke to find a hand touching her. She turned her head slowly and saw someone kneeling beside the bed.

“I screamed and jumped on my husband,” she said. “He got a fright. I shook him and he thought I was having, him on. I yelled ‘There’s! somebody under the bed.’ He! wasn't sure whether to be- \ lieve me or not. He put the light on, lifted the blankets at the end of the bed and saw someone there. “My husband asked him what the hell he was doing under there. I put my head under the blankets,” said the witness. She said she heard the man reply that he was sorry, but he must be in the wrong place.

To Mr Kerr she said she did not tell her husband until the next afternoon that she had been indecently assaulted because she. could not believe it had happened and she did not want to talk about it. Her husband said in evLdence that Kearney claimed he had been invited by a friend who had a flat in the same building to come back late that night and sleep under his bed. He must have mistaken the flat. Witness said when he took Kearney to the other flat the occupant denied making such an invitation. When he went to ask if someone else had invited Kearney, Kearney left. The husband said he later obtained Kearney’s name. Asked by Mr Kerr if Kearney appeared the worse for liquor, the husband said

Kearney had a strange look in his eye, but that might have ; been because he had turned the light on suddenly. Two men who were in the back flat at the time, and; both of whom are now serv-! ing prison sentences, gave evidence of being with Kear-. ney earlier in the day and of seeing him leave the flat about 11.30 p.m. In his address to the jury Mr Williamson said there was no doubt about the woman’s truthfulness. Kearney on the other hand had told lies about the invitation to return to his friend's flat and his i knowledge of the building. He said it was quite ridiculous and completely unlikely i that anyone would be invited' back to sleep under a bed. Mr Kerr emphasised to the ; jury that the woman’s evidence was the only evidence of indecent assault, and she had not told her husband I about that until the next ! day. He said her actions were those of a woman who > was very frightened because ! there was a strange man in jher room. He suggested that | what she believed was Keariney touching her could really j have been her husband i touching her in his sleep. Or j Kearney could have touched ! her accidentally as he was i lowering himself under the ! bed to go to sleep.

His Honour warned the jury against convicting anyone on an indecent assault charge on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. However, he said, that was not to say that they could not convict He said there were very grave difficulties in I accepting Kearney’s story.