Murder trial told of bouts of violence by deceased

Press, 24 February 1977, Page 2

Murder trial told of bouts of violence by deceased

Staff reporter Nelson When under the influence of alcohol, the deceased had been argumentative. unreasonable and violent, and twice in November last year was convicted on violencerelated charges, witnesses told a jury in the Supreme Court at Nelson yesterday. i The evidence was given during the third day of a hearing cf a cha'ge of murder, before Mr Justice Parker, against Phyllis Peggy Sowman. aged 44, who has denied murdering her husband, Roger John Sowman, at Station Creek, near Kawatiri, on December 11 last year.

All evidence has now been heard and this morning counsel will make final addresses to the jury, and his Honour will sum up. Messrs M. A. Bungay, of Wellington, and E. P. McNabb, of Nelson, are appearing for Mrs Sowman, and Mr R. D. Rabone for the Crown. The last two witnesses for the defence yesterday, Beverley Gail Robinson and Lynette Marie Robinson, both daughters of the accused by a former marriage, said that their stepfather had been a very nice man when sober. When drinking, however, he became argumentative, unreasonable and violent. Lynette Robinson said that when the deceased drank to excess “he used to knock Mum around, and me once too.”

Both cited examples of their mother suffering from amnesia after having a lot to drink. There were three defences to the murder charge against the accused, said Mr Bungay, opening his case. The Crown had to prove that Mrs Sowman intended to kill her husband, or so wound him that he would die of his injuries, for there to be intent. If there was doubt about intention, it was manslaughter, not murder. If the accused was found to have fired the shot deliberately, but under provocation, that was not murder either, but manslaughter. The Crown had to prove that the weapon was fired intentionally, and not accidentally. If it was fired accidentally, that was not murder, but acquittal, said Mr Bungay. A blood sample taken from the accused at 12.40 a.m. on December 12, gave a reading of 178 mg of alcohol, said Frank Hurst, a scientist of the D.S.I.R. and head of the department’s forensic section, giving evidence for the Crown earlier in the day. There was also evidence of the drug Amitriptyline, at a level of 0.06 micrograms per mililitre.

On the basis of an average hourly rate of decrease of alcohol in the blood of 15 mg of alcohol per 100 mis of blood, the alcohol level of Mrs Sowman at 5 p.m. the previous day would have been 293, said Mr Hurst. A moderate drinker with this level would have shown obvious signs of drunkeness; a habitual drinker would not have shown these signs to anything like the same degree, he said.

A sample of the deceased’s blood taken on December 13, gave an analysis of 237 mg alcohol per 100 ml, he said. Mr Hurst detailed examinations made of the shotgun used to fire the fatal shot, the cartridge fired, and the clothing of the deceased. From these examinations he said the muzzle of the shotgun probably had been between 4ft and 6ft from the deceased when fired.

Cross-examined by Mr Bungay about the alcohol- , elimination rate from the 'body, Mr Hurst said that 15 [was regarded by most authorities as an average figure, 'but that the rate might be [as low as 10 and as high as [25.

He agreed that heavy doses of alcohol could lead to amnesia. With an alcohol level of 250 a person’s ability to make rational judgments would be severely impaired. At 350, whatever was said could not be relied upon.

Mr Bungay: Would an alcohol level of 300 to 350 bring about extreme changes m brain function? Mr Hurst: Yes. —ln what way would that affect the brain? —lts main effect is to suppress inhibition. —Resulting in lack of selfcontrol?

Mr Hurst: Often manifested by lack of selfcontrol, and at these higher levels having physical effects — affecting sight, hearing, muscular co-ordina-tion, pulse, and breathing. The first witness for the defence, Professor Richard Dean Batt, professor of biochemistry at Massey University, said that since 1968 he had been researching in a special unit at the university the question of alcoholic metabolism, and was now working with a staff of 15. The research was financed by the Justice Department and the Medical Research Council.

Research since April last year had concentrated on the question of the alcohol elimination rate from the body. He detailed experiments among younger people, and among more hardened drinkers. Of 28 cases in the latter category, results had shown a range from 15 to 44, and a mean of 24.4, said witness. He disagreed with Mr Hurst’s average rate, given earlier as 15. A reasonable figure for the alcohol elimination rate as applied to the tested blood of Mrs Sowman would be 25, which would have given her an alcohol to blood level of 350 at 5 p.m. on the day of the shooting, he said. With this level, a person was reaching the stage where he or she could kill themselves, said Professor Batt. He listed symptoms of a person with a level of over 300. One of these, amnesia, was quite common with people with a level of much below 300, which was an abnormal figure.

At a level of 350 or more, a person would be extremely intoxicated, and the ability to think would be severely, if not completely, impaired, said witness. After giving evidence on examining and testing the shotgun found at the scene of the shooting. Michael John Chesham, a police armourer, told Mr Bungay that a finger would need to move only one-eighth of an inch on the trigger to fire the weapon. A finger-print belonging to the accused was on the breech area of the weaoon, said Detective John Andrew Burt, a police finger-print expert. The print was from the little finger of the accused’s left hand. He demonstrated to the jury the position of the little finger on the breech. This entailed having to hold his left hand across the breech, and covering the hammer of the weapon.

Detective Sergeant Ewart Ross Tyson said he spoke to [the accused when he first arrived at the scene of the shooting. He said he took iher up to see the body, and i she kissed the deceased on the face and said: “What is wrong with him. He’s not Idead.”

During the car trip to Murchison, and after she had been , formally warned, accused had been asked what (happened that day, said Mr i Tyson. She said: “I have been dry' for nine years until a [month ago. I have been on I Antabuse (a drug used in the [treatment of alcoholics) but I stopped taking them. I have [been drinking all today with 'Rog. At the Owen (the Owen [Hotel) this morning he bought half a bottle of vodka for himself, and later bought me a full bottle of Pimms. I didn't want to drink; he made me. He laughed at me. called me Stumpy. Was it the Russian gun I used? Both guns were in the back of the car.”

Later, when taken to Nelson, and just after 1 a.m. the next day, witness said he arrested Mrs Sowman for[ the murder of her husband and again warned her. She replied: “He is not dead; don’t be silly.” The accused slept most of the way from Murchison to Nelson, and when awake her speech at times was hard to follow.

“When I saw the accused at Higgins Road. I formed the opinion she was quite drunk, but I am satisfied that she was able to comprehend what was being said to her. I felt she was under the influence of drink or

drugs, or both, and possibly shock,” said Mr Tyson.

. To Mr Bungay he said he did not know the deceased [personally. He knew Mr [Sowman was before the Magistrate’s Court in November on two occasions — once for assaulting his wife, [when he was given a suspended sentence, and once for wilful damage. On that latter count he had thrown a cash register at a barman, he believed. The charge of [assaulting his wife involved ithreatening her with a knife.

Medical records of Mr and Mrs Sowman were given to: the Court by a defence witness, Dr Thomas Wishart | Harrison, a Nelson psychiatrist, and a former su-i perintendent of Queen Mary! Hospital, Hanmer Springs, who has specialised in the ■ treatment of alcoholics. The accused had been [admitted to various institutions for alcoholic problems on six occasions since [ 1966, said witness. The last 'admission was in October, 1976. The deceased had been admitted to hospital 13 times since 1969 for alcoholism treatment, the last time in August, 1976. The deceased also suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, which was a latent condition until he was drunk, when the signs and symptoms became manifest. When he interviewed the accused on December 14 and 15 he considered she was unable to remember events of the proceeding 24 hours or longer because she was suffering from alcoholic amnesia. He knew from her records that she suffered from amnesia frequently after drinking. Alcoholic amnesia was not rare in certain people, he said. He estimated it occurred in 30 to 40 per cent of non-alcoholic drinkers, and 60 to 90 per cent of alcoholics.

A person with a high blood-alcohol level would react to provocation, and he would expect an outburst of aggression even to mild pro■vocation. He would not expect to find this controlled, said witness.