JURY CONVICTS DOCTOR ON ABORTION CHARGE

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31628, 14 March 1968, Page 24

JURY CONVICTS DOCTOR ON ABORTION CHARGE

(N.Z. Press Association) NAPIER, Mar. 13. A jury in the Supreme Court at Napier today found a doctor, Arthur George Bell, aged 59, former assistant medical superintendent of the Waipawa. Hospital Board, guilty on a charge of unlawfully using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage. Bell pleaded not guilty in the trial, which was held before Mr Justice MacArthur. The jury returned its verdict after an adjournment of four hours, and Bell was remanded in custody for sentence until Friday. Two men, not the accused, could have falsely led a girl to believe she was getting an abortion at a doctor’s house, the defence counsel, Mr H. W. Dowling, told a jury in his final address. Mr Dowling said the girl was an accomplice to the alleged offence. It was dangerous to convict the accused on the evidence of an alleged accomplice. DISCREPANCIES There were discrepancies in the girl’s evidence that could affect the accused, he said. The girl had claimed that while ie was lying on the kitchen table her head was up against the window. This was not possible because of th** plan of the house. Her head would have been in the sink. Mr D .wling said if the girl did not know when she became pregnant she could have had a “serious” fall from her horse after she became pregnant. He said there was no evi-

dence of desperate evasion in Bell’s evidence.

Bell was correct in denying the police charge when he was awakened at 7.30 in the morning, 15 months after the alleged event took place. “There was no inconsistency in saying he doesn’t treat people at his house. Surely, common experience in life has show *. you that when faced with a serious crisis you will very frequently not recall the exact circumstances until you have had time to think about them calmly,” Mr Dowling said.

“It is evidence of his innocence that he did not have an explanation off pat to offer when the police called. “NOT ADMISSIBLE”

“It is essential to emphasise that any evidence you may have heard that Beattie told a different story on another occasion is not admissible evidence,” Mr Dowling said. “There was no evidence that th- doctor was offered any money whatsoever. Ashton Beattie said he and Webb divided the spoils between them.

“What an extraordinary risk Dr Bell would have taken if he did the operation in his house, which is in hospital grounds,” Mr Dowling said. “A sister was living right next door to the doctor. Anyone could have walked into the doctor’s house.”

In h': final address, Mr G. E. Bisson, for the Crown, said there had been no defence raised as to where the alleged operation took place. It could be accepted that if such an operation did take place it was unlawful because there was no evidence that it was a therapeutic operation.

“It is not disputed that the girl was pregnant,” he said. “The question is, therefore, was the miscarriage caused by an instrument? To answer this, you have to decide

whether the girl or the doctor was telling the truth.” Summing up, Mr Justice Macarthur said there had been a good deal of reference to some of the immoral behaviour of some of the witnesses concerned. These references were perfectly justifiab':, but this was not a court of morals. “You are here to decide whether this is a crime or not,” he told the jury. “You may have sympathy for the accused, but you can’t allow this to affect your judgment. You must make a cold, dispassionate view of the evidence.” NARROW COMPASS He said it was not a difficult case to decide. It fell into a narrow compass. There were certain witnesses who must be regarded

as accomplices. The first was the girl. It was dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, he said.

The other two accomplices were Ashton Beattie and Margaret Stafford. There was evidence that on the previous occasion Beattie made a statement saying he had paid Bell $6O. But this was hot evidence in this Court. There was no evidence in this Court that Bell was paid $6O, his Honour said. “The striking thing is that there is no dispute about a large amount of what the girl; said.” The dispute was on one question- whether she was telling the truth about the instrument used on her, or whether Dr Bell’s description of what took place was true.