SUPREME COURT Woman found not guilty of manslaughter of child

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32422, 8 October 1970, Page 21

SUPREME COURT Woman found not guilty of manslaughter of child

A jurv in the Supreme Court last evening, after a retirement of four hours and a quarter, found a 22-year-old mother not guilty on a charge of the manslaughter of her young daughter.

But the jury found the mother, Alice Evelyn Peters, guilty on an alternative charge of wilfully ill-treating Maree Alice Peters, aged two years and a half, in a manner likely to cause actual bodily harm. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded her on bail to Octo ber 15 for sentence. Mr D. H. P. Dawson appeared for Mrs Peters; and Mr B. McClelland and Mr: C. A. McVeigh for the' Crown. The trial began before a jury of 11 men and one woman on Monday and finished at 8.15 pm. yesterday. When Mr McClelland’s cross-examination resumed vesterday, Mrs Peters said she had attended the psychiatric clinic at Princess Margaret Hospital early this year to help her to understand the children. She felt that they were getting her down because she got depressed and cried. When asked if she had seen James Wilson Woodcock, a man who was living with Mrs Peters at the time of the child’s death, hitting the child at any time, Mrs Peters said she saw him pushing Maree’s face into the floor and pushing her at various times. Brother’s evidence Mr McClelland: Still you loved him? Mrs Peters: Yes. I told him I one time to do something about it as I was liable to get the blame. He promised to stop it Mr McClelland: Why would you be blamed. Mrs Peters: Because I was getting.-treatment Russell Brian Kerr, a brother of the accused, said he was living with Mrs Peters and Mr Woodcock on June 16 and for three months before that date. He saw Maree on June 15 when he got home from work and she appeared to be in quite good health. The only injury he saw was a bruise on the back of her left leg. During the time he had been living in the house he!

] had not seen Mrs Peters or Mr Woodcock ill-treat the ’ child, said the witness. In 1 answer to a question from ' Mr McClelland he said he r had seen Mr Woodcock give I an older child a bit of a hiding but never had he seen 1 Mrs Peters give her a hid- » ing. The witness agreed that he made a statement to the . police on June 19 in which he said: “Alice has given the kids the odd hiding while . I’ve been present and given j them a bit of a shake. When [ shaking them she gets hold J of them by the arms under | the shoulder, that is, under i the elbows. : “Got annoyed” 1 Mr McClelland: Is that ' true? Mr Kerr: Yes. s Mr McClelland: So you J have seen Mrs Peters give ' the children a hiding? Mr Kerr: Yes. Mr McClelland: Why did J you say you did not? 1 Mr Kerr: I don’t remember 1 Roger John Roxburgh, a ! painter and decorator, said he employed Mr Woodcock • in June. During a conversa--1 tion at which Mrs Peters was present about a month aftei ’ the death of the child, Mr ' Woodcock said the child was ? running round and he got ’ annoyed and pushed her J down a step. That night . he went of his own accord to the police and made a statement. Mr McClelland: You say 1 that Mr Woodcock told you i in front of Mrs Peters what 1 he had done to the child. • Mr Roxburgh: Yes. ! Mr McClelland: You tell 1 us that he told you before and Mrs Peters says that, ' he had told her long before. Why do you think he told ' you both again when you both already knew? ! Mr Roxburgh: I can’t think, other than the fact that he was distressed and ! wanted to get it off his mind Visit to police When asked why Mr Woodcock left Mr Roxburgh’s employment, Mr Roxburgh said it was because “I encouraged him to be a truthful and honest man and he apparently wasn't that I I way.” I

Mr McClelland: What you told him to do was to go to the police station and say that he had beaten the child. Mr Roxburgh: No. That was wrong. I encouraged him from the start to tell tile truth. Mr McClelland: Did he tel) you that it was on police advice that he left you? Mr Roxburgh: Yes. I recollect that he did tell me that. Mr McClelland: He told you, did he not, that the police had told him to leave his employment and get out because you were pressuring him to something he had not done. Mr Roxburgh: Yes. In his address to the jury, Mr McClelland said one of the important things to be decided was whether the statement Mrs Peters made to the police was a true one. If her statement was correct, she admitted hitting the child, and the medical evidence was that injuries suffered by the child caused her death. CHILD FELL Mr McClelland submitted that it could not be coincidence that Mrs Peters in her statement admitted beating the child and the pathologist’s report showing injuries consistent with such a beating. It was true that the child did fall on the day of her death but it was submitted that the fall was not severe because there were no injuries from it. “That girl was doomed from the moment her mother hit her head,” said Mr McClelland. Mr Dawson told the jury that because of the circumstances surrounding Mrs Peters at the time it was not unbelievable that she should have made an untrue statement about hitting her child. He submitted there were three possible causes of the child’s death. They were assault by Mrs Peters, in which case it would be manslaughter; broncho - pneumonia; and injuries received on the day she died. ACCUSED’S EXPLANATION I , In summing up, his Honour i told the jury that a major i matter was whether it ac-

cepted the accused’s explanation for rejecting her statement made to the police. He said he would not Tie surprised if the jury found it very difficult to accept the explanation the accused gave in the witness box. His Honour said that some evidence of the accused attending a psychiatric clinic earlier in the year had been given, but as the defence of insanity was not raised so it had to be presumed that the accused was perfectly sane as far as the charges on which she appeared were concerned.