SUPREME COURT Acquitted Of Murder On Ground Of Insanity

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30445, 20 May 1964, Page 8

SUPREME COURT Acquitted Of Murder On Ground Of Insanity

“I’ll strike again,’’ cried Kevin James Owen in the Supreme Court when a jury yesterday found him not guilty of murder on the ground of insanity.

As Mr Justice Macarthur was ordering Owen, a mental patient, to be kept in strict custody at Oakley Hospital, Auckland, until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known, Owen gripped the front of the dock with both hands and yelled: “I object. I’ll.strike again. I object.”

As two warders hustled him from the courtroom he shouted: “Your justice stinks.”

Owen was represented by Mr M. G. L. Loughnan. Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown, with him Mr N. W. Williamson.

In his summing-up; his Honour said that four verdicts were open to the jury in Owen’s trial on a charge of murdering Anthony Culley, a psychiatric nurse, in a corridor 'at Sunnyside Hospital on the afternoon of February 5.

The jury could find Owen guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty, or not guilty on the ground of insanity. His Honour said that if the matter rested with him he would be driven to the' conclusion that it was a matter of deciding whether Owen was guilty of murder or not guilty oh the ground of insanity. ‘

He said the jury would have no difficulty in deciding that Owen struck Culley a number of blows, that it was a savage assault, that he used a broom and a shovel, that Culley died as a result, and that probably the fatal blow was the one to the back of the head, probably inflicted with the broom.

If it was not murder, the jury would' be entitled to say

it was culpable homicide amounting to manslaughter. Mr Loughnan had asked the jury to take the view that the evidence left great doubt about any intent to cause death. The Crown Prosecutor had frankly conceded that there was a doubt.

Mr Loughnan had also suggested that the evidence did not go far enough to show intent to cause bodily injury that he knew was likely to cause death, or recklessness whether death ensued. Mr Loughnan had also submitted there was no evidence of intention to commit robbery. He had gone so far as to suggest acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to show Owen had committed the assault. “I don’t think it would be wrong of me to say that we must keep our feet on the ground,” said- his Honour, “and I suggest that some of the submissions on the facts under that heading completely lacked reality?’ . On the question of insanity, it was. important that the jury had had the evidence of two well-qualified doctors expressing the view that Owen knew what he was doing, but not that it was morally wrong. The jury could well

come to the conclusion that at the time he did not know it was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly held standards of right and wrong. Clearly, in that event, the verdict would be one of not guilty on the ground of insanity. His Honour said he must refer to the matter in connexion with Owen that a jury had decided last week. That jury 'had been called on to decide whether Owen was fit to stand his trial. It had decided he was fit to stand trial.

“However, that decision by that jury relates to a different point of time. The point of time that you have to consider is the time the alleged assault took place. You have to decide on the accused’s state of mind at the time of the alleged assault on February 5 this year,” his Honour said.

In support of the defence of insanity, Mr Loughnan called one medical witness, James Henry Weir Short, medical officer at Sunnyside Hospital, who said he interviewed Owen for two hours and a half on the evening of the alleged assault. He noticed a complete lack of feeling, the witness said. Instead, there was obvious indifference which was quite inappropriate to the act he had committed earlier. Owen told him he had no particular reason for assaulting Culley and bore him no grudge. The witness said he questioned Owen about his initial admission to Sunnyside after telephoning the police station and threateriing that he had a bullet for Sergeant Agnew. Owen replied: “Oh, it was only over the telephone, and he (Sergeant Agnew) was in Nelson at the time.” Owen said this with a smile, and his emotional response on that occasion was quite incongruous. The witness said that Owen knew what he was doing to •Culley, but did not understand the moral wrongfulness of the act. He, said he had been called to- see Owen in urgent circumstances at times when he was very disturbed at Sunnyside. Owen had been suicidal and sometimes inflicted severe injuries on himself. ( ’ Mr.' Justice Macarthur excused the jury from further service for two years.