SUPREME COURT Defence denies intent to kill in screwdriver death

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34152, 13 May 1976, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Defence denies intent to kill in screwdriver death

A denial that there was any intention to murder wij^ n a screwdriver was plunged up to the hilt into the back of u “man during a domestic argument at a nouse in Opawa, was made when the defence opened its case in the Supreme Court yesterday. An unlicensed car dealer has pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering Arthur Robert Hines, aged 33, on January 9. Accused has also pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of wounding the dead man’s wife, Clarice Hilda Hines, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and with intent to injure on the same date. Accused and Mrs Hines had been living in a de facto relationship at 8 Whittington Avenue, Opawa.

Mr Justice Roper is presiding over the trial which began on Monday. This morning counsel will make final addresses to the jury and then his Honour will sum up. The Crown alleges that accused murdered Mr Hines when he plunged a screwdriver into his back because accused did not want Mrs Hines, who had been living with him, to return to her husband. Messrs B. McClelland and D. J. L. Saunders appear for the Crown and Messrs R. L. Kerr and G. M. Brodie for accused.

Opening the case for the defence Mr Kerr said that accused would not give evidence but five witnesses would be called by the defence. The defence to the alternative wounding charges was that the Crown had failed to prove that accused had intended to either cause grievous bodily harm to Mrs Hines or to injure her. Just as in the wounding charges the Crown had backed two horses in the murder charge by alleging that accused intended to kill Mr Hines or if that was not proved that accused knew that his action was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued or not. “The defence is placed in the position where it has to unseat the jockeys of both horses,” Mr Kerr said. “The Crown was being a very cunning punter by backing two horses.” To the charge of murder the accused said that he neither had the intention to cause the death of Arthur Hines nor the intention to cause him grievous bodily injury, but if he did have that intention he did not know it was likely to cause death and he was not reckless as to whether death ensued or not. Further, if the jury found that the Crowm had proved either intention for murder, accused said that he was still not guilty of murder because Arthur Hines’s death was caused by provocation, and the charge' should be reduced to manslaughter. The defence of provocation

was a special defence which was only available to an accused person, provided a trial judge ruled that there was evidence of provocation. It was abundantly clear that accused was provoked.

Section 169 of the Crimes Act stated: "Anything done or said may be provocation if in the circumstances of the case it was sufficient to deprive a person having the power of self-control of an ordinary person, but otherwise having the characteristics of the offender, of the ! power of self-control.” That, according to section 169, meant that culpable I homicide that would otherwise be murder might be reduced to manslaughter if the person who caused the death did so under provocation. Mr Kerr submitted there could be no question that during the stuggle between accused and Arthur Hines that accused had lost his power of self-control. The provocative act which caused that was the arrival of Mr Hines at 8 Whittington Avenue.

It was the final straw as far as accused was concerned as it meant that he had lost all chance to be reunited with the woman he loved — Mrs Hines. Until January 9 accused believed that Mrs Hines was going to come back to him.

All the events leading up to January 9 had to be taken into account and they were such that they could not but lessen accused’s power of self-control.

Because of accused’s intense love for Mrs Hines his self-control burst on that date when he knew that the woman was going to be taken away from him. Evidence would be given by a psychiatrist that accused suffered from a severe personality disorder which made it very difficult for him to keep his temper and that he suffered from overlaying paranoia which made him suspicious of what those in authority were likely to do to him.

A woman, who had known accused and Mrs Hines for more than four years would give evidence that at 2 a.m. on January 9 she was at home in bed when accused hammered on her door. He was in a very distressed and agitated state. There were streaks of blood on his neck and he told her that he had tried to cut his throat. Accused asked if he could stay the night and the woman agreed. They discussed accused’s love for Mrs Hines. He returned to his caravan but came back to the woman’s house about 10 a.m. Accused said that he had learned that Mr Hines was going to 8 Whittington Avenue and he said that if he found him there he would throw him off the property, Mr Kerr said. A woman, whose name was suppressed, said that accused arrived at her home about 2 a.m. on January 9 in a very agitated state. He said that he had tried to commit suicide. The police had arrived and he had run away. There was blood and dirt around his neck. She could tell by accused’s breath that he had been

drinking. He kept repeating himself. He could not keep still and was crying some of the time. Accused told her that he had tried to kill himself because Chris (Mrs Hines) was not living with him and he did not know if she wanted him back or not. Accused slept in the living room. Next morning accused had a bath and a cup of coffee. He was still very agitated. He asked witness to see Mrs Hines and to ask Mrs Hines if she would have him back, the witness said.

Leslie Ding, a psychiatrist, said that he had interviewed accused on two occasions for more than four hours. He had read various reports on accused, and he had read the notes of evidence of the trial.

Accused was an only child and he had an abnormally remote relationship with his father whom he had very little to do with until his late teens.

His mother was over-pro-tective and over-indulgent. She did not set consistent disciplinary limits on accused’s behaviour as a child and consequently that played a very big part in his inability to develop self-dis-cipline and self-control. In later years he became quite bitter towards his mother and for many years he had almost nothing to do with her.

At the age of eight accused was expelled from the Addington Primary School for fighting and at 10 from Sydenham School for fighting. He was aged 14j when he was expelled from the Technical College for misbehaviour.

“In my opinion that would certainly indicate a very disturbed personality defect at a very early age,” Dr Ding said. Accused was married at the age of 18. Initially he was with his wife for two years. They lived apart for six years and then they lived together for about two years. He had a 13-year-o!d son for whom he had no special feeling.

Until Mrs Hines came along accused had no special relationship with any woman except his wife. His relationships with other women were very transient and lasted no more than a week. They were certainly of no deep emotional nature. Accused had a very special relationship with Mrs Hines. He was more emotionally involved with her than with his wife. Compared with his attitude to Mrs Hines the one with his wife was a somewhat casual one. Accused had a major problem with his temper. Dr Ding said. He was easily provoked, and once provoked and feeling angry his violence could explode in a very impulsive manner. The inability of accused to control his ten. er was related to his personality disorder due to the lack of control in the early phases of his life. In his mother’s eyes he could do no wrong. The explosive nature of his anger characterised his personality disorder. He also had paranoid tendencies by which he felt offended if something went wrong be-

tween him and other persons. His immediate response was that someone had short-changed him but it was never his fault.

“The paranoid tendencies relate especially towards people in authority. I believe that much of his difficulty in school was related to this. He has a strong mistrust of the police,” said Dr Ding. In the period before and after Christmas, 1975, accused was under considerable stress. He became increasingly agitated and desperate that he would lose Chris Hines and that he would or could lose her to Arthur Hines. Accused was a jealous and suspicious man and, with Arthur Hines coming around on the week-ends to see his children, the idea developed in accused’s mind that Mrs Hines would return to her husband Asked to comment on the arguments between accused and Mrs Hines in December, Dr Ding said that initially they were over Mrs Hines’s youngest daughter. Accused was not a fatherly sort of person and in fact was quite intolerant of children. He was harsh in his attitude towards the child and naturally Mrs Hines would be protective towards her. Other factors were accused’s receiving notice to leave 8 Whittington Avenue, the police seeing him about dealing in second-hand motor vehicles without a licence, Arthur Hines’s visit to the property, his inability to get his cartage business going, and the shortage of money. All that made him very resentful, bitter and angry. He felt that everyone was against him. When Mr and Mrs Hines arrived at 8 Whittington Avenue to collect Mrs Hines’s furniture accused would have been extremely agitated and would have experienced feelings of hopelessness, desperation and vulnerability which would have led to him losing his temper in a violent and explosive manner, said Dr Ding.