Jury finds woman guilty of manslaughter of husband

Press, 25 February 1977, Page 3

Jury finds woman guilty of manslaughter of husband

Staff reporter Nelson I A jury at the Nelson Supreme Court yesterday found Phyllis Peggy Sowman. aged 44, guiltv of the manslaughter of her husband, Roger John Sowman, at Station Creek, near Kawatiri on December 11, 1976. The jury added a rider recommending mercy. It found the accused not guilty on the charge of murder. Mr Justice Barker remanded Mrs Sowman in custody for sentence to a time and place to be fixed, and called for a probation officer’s report. The jury retired to consider its verdict at 12.43 p.m. and returned at 5.53 p.m. Mrs Sowman was represented by Messrs M. A. Bungay (Wellington) and Mr E. P. McNabb (Nelson) and the Crown by Mr R. D. Rabone (Wellington). In his closing address to the jury, Mr Rabone said the possibility of Mr Sowman shooting himself was untenable. Evidence was given by at least two witnesses that the muzzle of the gun was about 6ft away and one witness said it was certainly not closer than 3ft to the body when fired. To present a gun at another person and fire it was an assault if done intentionally. The question was: Did

Mrs Sowman intend to hit her husband when she fired? The Crown submitted that she did, said Mr Rabone. It was no accident, said Mr Rabone. He referred to things the accused had said to various people after the tragedy — “I didn’t want to do it,” and, “He laughed at me so I shot him.” If the jury concluded that she assaulted her husband by firing the gun, then that was an act of murder or manslaughter, said Mr Rabone. If the jury accepted that Mrs Sowman fired the gun at her husband bv a deliberate act, it must follow that in the absence of some mental condition, she meant to kill or use the firearm recklessly so that injury that might lead to death would be caused. Alcohol and Mrs Sowman’s condition had played a large part in the trial, but drunkenness could do no more than reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter and then only in certain circumstances. It was not a complete answer to the charge, said Mr Rabone.

Traversing the evidence, Mr Rabone said it appeared, from the times given by the most reliable witness, that the Sowmans were at the hut for about 30 minutes after returning from the Owen Hotel. There was evidence of

Mrs Sowman forming an intent to kill in that she got the gun from the back of the car, and a cartridge from the glove box. On the question of provocation, Mr Rabone said that, under law, the things Mrs Sowman said the deceased had said to her had not touched upon the characteristics of provocation required by law. The history of the whole episode was quite unfortunate and very sad, said Mr Bungay. A woman of 44, who had had a most unfortunate life, was on trial. The death of her first husband led her to alcohol which she managed to control and overcome for nine years. Then she met Roger Sowman and they married three years ago and they were very happy together until alcohol was introduced and led up to this tragedy. Exactly what happened at the hut would never be known. Mrs Sowman had suffered from alcoholic amnesia and she did not know. But, there was no dissension between them when they left the hotel and it was not known how long they were at the hut. Only one shot was fired. The rest was guesswork. But cold, hard facts, not guesswork were required, said Mr Bungay. There was no concrete evidence that she took the

gun from the car and loaded it. It could have been Mr Sowman who did this. There was no motive. Both were very drunk, almost uncontrollably drunk. It was not known if there was a struggle, or what caused the gun to go off.

“The whole thing was triggered by 'he movement of one-eighth of an inch on t u e trigger by a finger,” said Mr Bungay. The ground was rough and they were drunk.

Much had been assumed from what Mrs Sowman had said afterwards. These were the meanderings of a drunken woman and the Crown had picked out only isolated words from what had been said by this drunken woman, he said. He referred to the expert evidence of Professor R. D. Batt and Dr T. W. Harrison on blood alcohol levels and her personal alcoholic history. Dr Harrison had said he did not think she had had the mental capacity to form any intent to kill and to convict her of murder would be to utterly reject this opinion of Dr Harrison, he said.

Considering the question of provocation, Mr Bungay said it had to be remembered what Mrs Sowman had said about her husband. That he had made her drink after being “dry” for nine years, that he had “pushed

her” (“and he was a violent man”). Also what Dr Harrison had said — that a person with her alcohol-to-blood count could become extremely aggressive by the most gentle provocation. His Honour spent much of his summary on explaining the law and the three alter-', native verdicts open to the jury — murder, acquittal (if the jury found the shot had been fired accidentally) and manslaugnter. He advised the jury to look most carefully at the question of intent and provocation.