SUPREME COURT Man found not guilty on ground of insanity

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33460, 15 February 1974, Page 4

SUPREME COURT Man found not guilty on ground of insanity

Robert Stark Halkett, aged 57. a timber yard worker, was found not guilty on the ground of insanity by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on charges of murdering his wife, Frances Wilson Goodwin Halkett, and of attempting to murder his sister-in-law, I lelen Wilson Riley, on November 22.

Mr Justice Macarthur ordered that Halkett be kept in strict custody at Sunnyside Hospital until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known.

Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown and Mr R. K. Godfrey for Halkett, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Kenneth Christopher Jones, an aviation instructor, said that at 8.20 a.m. on November 2 he was driving along Mooray Avenue when he noticed a woman on her hands and knees on the footpath. He assisted her into house No. 48. Her hair was matted with blood and there were scratches on her face. POLICE CALLED

After witness had placed the woman in a chair the accused came into the room. He was wearing pyjamas and his hands were covered in blood. Accused said: “I have killed her” or “I have murdered her.” Witness told accused that he was going to telephone the police. Detective D. B. Smith said that he found the body of Mrs Halkett between two beds. There was much blood around, and extensive injuries to the head. Witness produced a blood-stained hammer with hair adhering to it. Dr L. L. Treadgold, a pathologist, said that in his opinion the cause of Mrs Halkett’s death was gross head injuries consistent with their having been inflicted by the hammer found by the body. “STARING AHEAD” Detective Sergeant A. G. I. Rodgers said that when he saw the accused at 9.32 a.m. on November 22 be was sitting quietly in the kitchen. When taken to the C. 1.8.

office, accused sat perfectly still and stared straight ahead. Questioned, accused said: “We didn’t have a row. I think Fay, my wife, came into the bedroom. Something came over me. I lifted the hammer and struck her on the head. I don’t know how many times I struck her. Helen is my wife’s sister. I think she must have been in the dinette. I hit her and she ran down the driveway. I went down there and she was screaming and I hit her with the hammer about three times. Then I went back to the bedroom. I put my arms around Fay and I kissed her. I loved Fay very much.” Witness said that accused made those statements over a period of three quarters of an hour. His sentences were very disjointed. He appeared very confused and at times almost incoherent. DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE The first witness for the defence, Dr B. A. Ford, said that he had been the family practitioner for accused since April, 1970. Accused’s wife had suffered a number of illnesses, many of which required hospital treatment. Accused was a member of a close-knit family. On October 23 accused saw witness and he complained of feeling abnormally tired, that he had no appetite, and that his sleep was disturbed. After examination and tests witness was of the opinion that accused was suffering from a reactive depressive illness of a mild degree for which he prescribed anti-depressive medication. At 7.30 a.m. on November 19 witness said that Mrs Halkett called him and said that she was worried by her husband’s behaviour. Witness went to the home. Accused said that he had set off for work that morning and after driving so far he had decided that he could not cope with

work and had returned home. He said that he was useless and was a bad husband.

Accused was agitated and walked up and down or sat and stared. He did not

respond very well to direct questioning. DOSE INCREASED

Witness formed the opinion that accused's depressive illness had over the previous few days become much more severe, and he increased the anti-depressive medication to a much large dosage. Witness gave details of other visits to accused.

Dr Ford said that in his opinion when accused murdered his wife he was mentally ill. Witness did not think that accused understood the nature and quality of •vhat he had done. Dr D. P. Baron, a psychiatrist at Sunnyside Hospital, said that he had examined accused after he had been charged with the murder of his wife. Witness was the doctor responsible for accused’s treatment at Sunnyside Hospital. “In my opinion at the time of the alleged offences the accused was suffering from a mental illness and in my view the case comes within section 23 of the Crimes Act,” said Dr Baron. “I believe that he did not properly understand the nature and quality of the act he committed and that at the time he did not know that what he was doing was morally wrong according to the accepted standards of the community.” Dr T. E. Hall, superintendent of Sunnyside Hospital, gave similar evidence.