Verdict Of Insanity In Murder Trial

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31343, 13 April 1967, Page 3

Verdict Of Insanity In Murder Trial

(New Zealand Press Association) TIMARU, April 12. A verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity was returned by a jury in the Supreme Court, Timaru, tonight in the trial of Christian Hooper, a 29-year-old driver’s assistant, on a charge of murdering his wife, Veronica Evelyn Hooper, aged 39, by stabbing on Elecember 31.

Hooper was remanded to Sunnyside Hospital, or such other institution as the Crown sees fit, until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known. The jury retired after hearing evidence for three days at 5.40 p.m. and returned with its verdict at 8.15 pre. Hooper received the verdict without emotion, and was immediately led from the Court by a prison officer and policemen. The case was heard before Mr Justice Henry. Mr M. C. Gresson, with him Mr E. W. Unwin, appeared for the Crown. The defence wm conducted by Mr B. J. Petrie. Counsels’ Addresses

In his summing up, Mr Gresson submitted that any

question of loss of control by Hooper should be considered under the category of insanity, and not that of provocation, and the jury Should not reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter because Hooper bad been provoked. Mr Petrie said the jury could not discount the possibility of the dead woman having committed suicide, or of her having been killed by a third person. The arrest of Hooper had resulted in no further investigations being made about the involvement of a third party. Referring to the petty at the house the night Mrs Hooper died, Mr Petrie described tt m a “bizarre setup.” Meaning Of Insanity On the question of insanity, Mr Petrie said it wm deer Hooper suffered from a diseese of the mind, and the jury had to decide if he committed

the act, whether he realised it and whether he knew it was wrong.

His Honour said four verdicts were open to the jury to reach—not guilty; not guilty on the grounds of in* sanity; guilty; and manslaughter, applying the law relating

to provocation. His Honour said the words “insane" and “inaanity” had a special legal meaning, and the jury was required to keep strictly within the limits of that definition.

It would not be sufficient for the jury to accept that the accused wm an epileptic and merely to say he wm not responsible for his actions at the time, which wm the term used by two medical witnesses. The question the jury had to decide wm whether he wm responsible for the art—provided, in fact, they found he had committed it—within the legal definition which be then gave.