Judge to sum up today in rape-murder trial

Press, 2 August 1985, Page 7

Judge to sum up today in rape-murder trial

Evidence was completed and final addresses given in the trial of Samuel Dion Hohua, aged 34, a sickness beneficiary, on charges of rape and murder, in the High Court yesterday. Mr Justice Hollan will sum up this morning before the jury retires to consider its verdict. Two charges of burglary were amended at the completion of evidence to charges of unlawful entering of flats 39A and 398 Lincoln Road on February 1. Hohua has pleaded not guilty to these and not guilty to charges of raping Ellen May Dixon, aged 72, a widow, in her flat on the night of February 1, and of murdering her the same night. The trial began on Monday. The Crown is represented by Messrs G. K. Panckhurst and R. Neave and the accused by Messrs L. M. O’Reilly and M. J. B. Hobbs. A defensive witness, Dr Reginald Warren Medlicott, a psychiatrist, said that in his opinion the accused, at the time of the killing, was suffering from an acute or brief psychiatric episode. The accused’s ego functioning disintegrated into pyschosis at the time he was struggling to get away from Mrs Dixon. “Such states can occur under severe situational emotional stress,” said Dr Medlicott. He said there were previous occasions where the accused had been angry and went what one might call

berserk. It was significant that in the accused’s childhood there were a number of times when his father had been drunk and kicked or booted the accused, said Dr Medlicott. Dr Medlicott said that he had interviewed the accused for 75 minutes on April 5. The accused had told him that he did go back to the flat a second time. He had maintained that he tried to make Mrs Dixon breathe but could not revive her. He was so confused he “went crazy and raped her." Dr Medlicott said that melleril was a major tranquilliser. It could have had an influence on the accused’s mental integration. Anti-depressants could also affect memory. Under cross-examination by Mr Panckhurst, Dr Medlicott agreed that people accused of criminal offences often denied knowledge of essential events and in time convinced themselves that they could not remember them. The ability of the human mind to block out the worst experiences was one response, he said. Dr Medlicott also agreed that the accused was a “practised liar,” but qualified that by saying that half the time Hohua did not know whether he was telling the truth or not. Dr Medlicott said he was aware of the legal definition of insanity and in his opinion Hohua was legally insane for a minute or so but was not insane since then. He was not insane in the certifiable sense but

was still a very disturbed man. Mr Justice Holland asked Dr Medlicott if it was not unusual when people became angry for them to get out of control, and when in such situations were they in a psychotic state? Dr Medlicott said that they were not. People could act wildly or stupidly but that did not mean they were psychotic. Earlier in the case, the accused answered questions by his Honour after Mr Panckhurst completed his cross-examination. The accused told his Honour that he had changed his clothes when he went back to his flat on the night of February 1 because he thought he had been seen running out of the flat. Asked by his Honour why he went to the hotel and drank liquor if he was, as he said, upset, the accused said it was because it might provide an excuse to say that he was in the hotel. Asked if he thought Mrs Dixon was dead when he returned to the flat the second time and had sexual intercourse, the accused said, “Yes.” Mr Panckhurst submitted in his final address to the jury that evidence of unlawful entering was overwhelming. There was also abundant evidence of rape. The Crown submitted that the jury should reject the accused’s evidence that he had returned to the flat a second time and had intercourse then. It was a fabrication, to confuse the picture or pre-

sent the accused in a better light. It did not make sense that he should return out of concern, then empty the contents of Mrs Dixon’s bag, cover her up, and have intercourse, said Mr Panckhurst. It was plainly a case of murder, said Mr Panckhurst. The accused not only killed with unlawful intent but had a murderous intent, he submitted. On the question of alleged insanity, Dr Medlicott had acknowledged that a common defence mechanism was to blot out what one did not like. If the accused had not lost his memory the defence of insanity was gone, said Mr Panckhurst. Mr O’Reilly submitted in his final address that the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Dixon was alive at the time of sexual intercourse. No’one had got the accused to admit he had any memory of booting Mrs Dixon because he had no conscious volition of it. Dr Medlicott had said in evidence that while blotting out of memory could occur as a defence mechanism, in his opinion this had not occurred with the accused. It was Dr Medlicott’s professional opinion that the accused was insane at the time of the booting of the deceased, said Mr O’Reilly. The Crown had called no medical witness to rebut the evidence of Dr Medlicott, he said.