Manslaughter, not murder — defence

Press, 16 August 1980, Page 4

Manslaughter, not murder — defence

Because the Crown had failed to. prove the necessary intent Warren James Corkin, aged 23, was guilty, of manslaughter, not murder, Mr R.! J. Murfitt asserted in the High Court yesterday when j opening the case for the: defence. ’ ' C

Corkin and Raymond Bremner Fryer, aged 29, also unemployed, have pleaded not guilty to a, charge of murdering George Frankley Carrodus, aged 62, a- hairdresser, in a Lincoln Road shop on February 21. . ‘ - The trial, before Mr Justice Roper and a jury, /will continue on Monday. < : / . It is alleged by the Crown that Corkin arid Fryer‘battered Mr Carrodus to death With lengths of wood and poured paint over his head. The trial began last Tuesday. The Crown, which called 34 witnesses,, concluded its case yesterday afternoon.

Messrs R. L. Kerr and B. M. Stanaway appear for the Crown, Messrs R. J. Murfitt and B. J. Ching for Corkin, and Messrs K. N. Hampton and S. C. Barker for Fryer. Dr Patrick Robert Kelleher, a pathologist, said that he conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Mr Carrodus. He detailed the numerous injuries he found on tthe head and body. There were multiple lacerations, niainly on the left side of the face. The nasal bones) and left cheekbone were fractured. There was extensive buising over the scalp and forehead. Some of the lacerations on the scalp were down to the bone and the skull was fractured. There was bruising of the brain,

!. The injuries must have been caused by multiple 'blows delivered with great force by a heavy object such jas 'a length of wood. i There was thick paint on the face, completely hiding ■ the features. It was obviousj that the paint had been' poured on, not just painted. The paint covered the whole of the face. Dr Kelleher said that in his opinion the cause of death was multiple severe head injuries, caused by an instrument such as the pieces of wood produced in court. rii;/

Opening his case Mr Murfitt said that it .was -clear from the evidence’’ that Corkin had drunk a considerable amount of liquor during the day and evening. He was involved in a scuffle, jointly with another, with Mr Car-

rodus, which developed into a substantial assault. It was not denied that Corkin assaulted Mr Carrodus.. At the end of the! case the jury might well (find that Corkin was guilty 'of culpable homicide, but that did not mean he was guilty of murder. The Crown had failed to prove that Corkin had intended to cause Mr Carrodus’s death; or bodily injury knowing that it was likely to result in his death; or that he had done an unlawful act' that he knew was likely to cause his death.

The defence was that Cor--1 kin had committed man- ■ slaughter and not murder 1 because of his state of mind 1 at the time when the un- • fortunate incident occurred. ; Dr Leslie Ding, a psy- ■ chiatrist. said it was bis ’ opinion that Corkin suffered from a severe personality ■ disorder. Inadequacy to cope ) was a major feature of Cor- - kin’s personality. . Although of average or above average intelligence his academic achievement in ■ school was extremely poor : and he was unable to get on with other children. After becoming addicted Ito alcohol he commenced using a wide range of tranl quillisers to extenuate the effect of alcohol. For about • three months he received in- - patient treatment at the Sal-

vation Army bridge programme for alcoholism. He had been addicted to alcohol for at least three years. Since about? the age of 12 Corkin had developed a pattern of repeated offences against the law. It started with running away ' from home and probably initially involved the stealing' of food. The most characteristic feature of Corkin’s personality was his tendency to impulsive behaviour which would be triggered off by emotional frustration, rejec-

tion, or being confronted by physical threats. His family background contributed to a great degree to his personality disorder, Dr Ding said. Persons coming from a family where there, was an excessive use of harsh physical force and discipline, or where parents inflicted something unpleasant on the child, suffered from this type of disorder.

His father and natural mother parted when he was 18 months old. Until the age of four he was in institutions or :..foster homes.

From then until he was 12, he lived in the home of his father and stepmother.; There was no bonding or warmth between Corkin and his stepmother, or even his own father. There was an extensive use of force and there was very little positive encouragement and that had helped to develop the disorder.

Corkin suffered front bed wetting which'was not an uncommon symptom of a depressed child. The fairly typical treatment for that was for one of his sisters to stand up and pour cold water over Corkin with the step-siblings looking on. When his father was very angry one method of punishment was for Corkin to lie on top of a bed spreadeagled with his bottom, bare while he was .strapped with his step-siblings watching as part of the punishment. There was a fair degree of discrimination in that the step-siblings won favour and affection, whereas . Corkin did not. The reason why Corkin bore that type of discrimination was that after a short period he was the only ■ehild from his father’s first marriage living in his father’s home of the second marriage. In addition he was the eldest child and therefore carried more responsibility. ' -• ; ' ; - “Also in all probability he would have been a. difficult child to handle and another factor was that he was the meat in the sandw’ich in the conflict between father and stepmother — Ccrkin representing the offspring from the first marriage,” said Dr Ding.