SUPREME COURT Statement By Accused Held Admissible

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30452, 28 May 1964, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Statement By Accused Held Admissible

A statement by the accused, Keith Garfield Morris, to a detective sergeant the day after the accused had been seriously wounded by a rifle bullet was held to be admissible in evidence by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Earlier in the trial Mr R. A. Young, senior counsel for the accused, challenged the admissibility of the statement. The jury was released and evidence and submissions were heard in its absence. Morris, aged 25, who has pleaded not guilty, is charged with the attempted murder of Constable Andrew Robert McFarlane on February 25 and with discharging a firearm at Ruebin Curtis Warnock on the same date with intent to intimidate. Mr P. G. S. Penlington appears with Mr Young for the accused, and Mr C. M. Roper for the Crown. Detective-Sergeant P. J. O’Donovan said he interviewed the accused in the recovery ward at the Christchurch Hospital on February 26. The accused told him he knew he had done wrong and expected to get a long term in prison or a mental hospital. The witness said he obtained permission from Dr. Gormly to interview the accused. The doctor said the accused was in a fit state to be interviewed. During the interview the accused showed no signs of strain and required no medical or nursing treatment other than a drink of water. Statement Read In a statement made to the witness the accused said that after dinner on February 25 Warnock told him he wanted him to go into town in the car that afternoon. The accused said he went to check that the garage was locked and when he went out to the street the car had gone. The accused said he then went to the Sandridge Hotel and came home about 7.5 p.m. His mother and Warnock were already at home. “I said to the old man, ‘You’re a bright beaut, aren’t you?’ He said that he couldn’t wait on me all day. I was pretty angry. “I turned the TV off. I don’t know why I did this—in anger, I suppose. He , turned it back on. I’m not I sure how it came about actually but we had a fight in the I lounge. My mother came to the lounge door. I don’t ! know why, but I hit her on the right cheek—just something out of the blue, I suppose. I then went out to the garage and got my rifle.” The accused said he loaded the rifle with 15 rounds in the garage and fired one shot up in the air to make sure it j was working properly. ■ “I intended to scare the I old man. I think I took some of the bullets, about three. 1 out of the rifle. I went into I the house to scare them all out. I don’t know why I 1 wanted them out—just one of those silly things.” The accused said that after sending the children out of the room he fired a shot over Warnock’s head and told him to get Out. Warnock went into the kitchen and the accused went outside and fired through the kitchen window. “I could not see the old man when I fired and I did not intend to hit him.” The accused said he knew I his mother had. gone in next ; door, and fired two shots into I the door to try to get in. Arrival Of Police 1 “Then the police turned up,” the statement continued. “I walked round from the back of the house. I saw one policeman in a white helmet at the front door. There

was another policeman at the car on the other side of the engine. The policeman at the door called out something like ‘Drop it.’ I did not drop it. “Then he pulled out a pistol and fired a shot over my head. I still kept hold of the gun. Then he called out to the man at the car, ‘Righto Andy.’ “The policeman at the car fired one over my head. I knew that it was a warning shot. I fired back at him. I tried to hit him when I fired back at him. I don’t know why I did it for. “Then the policeman at the car fired again and the bullet hit me. I was quite conscious all the way to the hospital. When I fired at the policeman I could see from the stomach upwards behind the bonnet of the car. He took a steadier aim because he could rest the rifle on the car. “I have been subject to fits but I did not have one yesterday. I just went mad, that’s all,” the accused’s statement said. “The policeman at the car only shot me in self-defence. Put it this way. He had his rifle and I had mine. If he hadn’t had one, where would he be? In the cactus.” Cross-examined by Mr Young, the witness said he had never interviewed anyone in a hospital recovery ward before, and had not received special instructions from his superiors to do so on this occasion. He had made no inquiries as to the accused having received any pain-relieving drugs, but assumed he had received some. Mr Young: You knew the accused had been seriously wounded by a .303 bullet fired at close range? The witness: I did. You know the bullet had travelled out of the accused’s body at such velocity that it almost broke the rifle butt in two? —I did. Opening the case for the accused, Mr Penlington said the defence proposed to call one witness —a neurologist from Dunedin—who had been acquainted with the abcused and his condition since 1956. The purpose of the evidence was to direct attention, to the circumstances in which the police statement was taken. Mr Penlington said that Dr. Macleod would give evidence as to his opinion of the accused’s mental and physical state when the statement was made. The effect of the evidence would be that the jury could place little or no reliance on the statement of the accused. Edwin Keith Macleod, a registered medical practitioner and neurologist, of Dunedin, said he had dealt in a professional capacity with the • accused since 1956. The accused had had 17 admissions to the Dunedin Hospital, and been a patient at the Seacliff • Psychiatric Hospital. “Grossly Abnormal” The witness said he had dealt with the accused as an out-patient and had investigated his case extensively. It showed a grossly abnormal record. The accused had an extensive brain disease, of which his epilepsy, low intelligence, and personality characteristics were a result. The witness said that two years ago the accused became annoyed in a shop. He became abusive and destructive and as a result was sent to

Seacliff. There was a definite similarity between that incident and the present one. He said the accused, was a passive-aggressive type of person who swung from passive to very aggressive behaviour, generally provoked by a frustration. After this there was generally a reversion to a very passive and submissive stateThe result of this would be that the accused would either say nothing about the incident or be very voluble - and give an exaggerated and dramatic version. As a result of his fits,, personality, and intelligence the accused had been unemployable. He had few friends and was entirely dependent on his mother and the people immediately around him. His life was one of intolerable boredom. He lived a life of fantasy. -■ The witness said that after the shooting the accused was off his anti-convulsive tablets, and there was. likely to be a lot of abnormal activity in his brain. While this was going on his brain would be clear, but he would be abnormally suggestive. He would be extraordinarily passive in meeting what was wanted of him. The witness said the accused’s statement was unusual, to say the least. It indicated the accused’s grandiose feelings. He frequently had them, but they were never successful. The witness said the accused felt mad and wanted to shoot someone, but knew from long experience of his capacity that attempts to carry this out would be very ineffective. Addresses To Jury In his address to the jury Mr Young said that when the police party arrived at the house, it was faced with what might have seemed a nasty situation. If an order had been given to bring down the accused the police officer would have been doing no more than his duty Sergeant White heard only one shot fired by the accused, and Warnock saw only one shot fired. Constable McFarlane’s evidence was unreliable on many points which were not in themselves important, but in the' aggregate were important because police officers were trained in observation. Mr Young said the statement made by the accused should be regarded With such suspicion that it should be rejected. Mr Roper said .that Mr Young’s unwarranted criticism of Constable McFarlane was made only because his evidence was so damning to the accused. Constable McFarlane had the accused in sight all the time and observed him closely. “It has been suggested that the constable said a lot of things about the accused which no-one else saw, but all the others had two or more points of interest to watch. Constable McFarlane knew what he had to do. He had to stop the accused,” Mr Roper said. His Honour will sum up today.