S.M. dismisses three charges

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33883, 1 July 1975, Page 7

S.M. dismisses three charges

A mar. who told the Magistrate's Court he had loet hts tneraorv and did not remember much of the offences he was charged with had the charges dismissed yesterday by Mr K. H. J. Head Hen. S.M. Allan Leslie Graham, aged 24. a seaman (Mr P. Egden). had earlier pleaded not guilty to charges of behaving in a threatening manner, resisting a constable, and dangerous driving, on March 25. The Magistrate had reserved his decision.

Evidence had earlier been given that a women and her son who were delivering newspapers in a Merivale street on March 25 were allegedly threatened by the defendant, who was in a car.

The woman had said that the defendant seemed ill at the tsn’C Constable W. D. Schwass had said that while interviewing the defendant at the scene, he was knocked down as the car drove

Graham had said that on the evening before the alleged offences he had slipped over in a hotel car-park and hit his head on the corner of a parked trailer. Dr P- M. Shaw, who later examined Graham had said that Graham had had heavy bruising

i above his eye which caused concussion. He had said that the defendant was in such a state that he was not aware of what he was doing. The prosecution clearly established the charges against Graham, but he raised the defence of automatism, said the Magistrate. This meant he would not be conscious of what ■he was doing. Graham had not been talking iin a normal manner, when he I got to the police station his behaviour changed from rational to Irrational and he had at times .‘‘a silly grin on his face.” The evidence showed a very i abnormal form of behaviour ■which was quite irrational, said the Magistrate. There was no possible reason for the defendant to approach ] the woman and her son, or to drive his car up and down Merivale streets in such a manner. Medical evidence showed the defendant was suffering from ; concussion and the stupid bizlarre behaviour while driving a motor vehicle was not the action of a rational man. The defence had been established to an extent that there must be considerable doubt as to the defendant’s consciousness. “I find that Graham is entitled to any doubt and dismiss the ' charges,” he said.