Inadmissible Evidence At Conclusion of Trial

Horowhenua Chronicle, 5 August 1933, Page 7

Inadmissible Evidence At Conclusion of Trial

husband takes whole 1 RESPONSIBILITY. BOTH ACCUSED GET SEVEN YEARS’ GAOL AUCKLAND, Last Night. The unusual instance of a prisoner going ii'ito the witness-box before sen-, tence was passed upon him, and taking all responsibility for a crime of which lie and his wife had boon jointly convicted, occurred at the Supreme Court when Robert William Campbell, aged 37, and hjs wife, Mary Campbell, aged 39, wore placed in the dock for sentence. Both had been found guilty of performing an unlawful operation upon a girl, who had later died in the Taumarunui hospital. In asking Mr. Justice Smith 1o make the penalties as light as the Court could reasonably make them, Mr. R. A. Singer, for the prisoners, said: "I want to say that the whole of the responsibility for what was done at the house is attributable to the husband alone. All Mrs. Campbell did was to take care of the patients. The husband desires to take the whole of the blame.

“Tf if is right that the wife was compelled to assist. her husband, thou the penalty imposed upon her should be exceptionally light. T. submit that some consideration should bo given by the Court in the light of modern changes. ’ ’ His Honour: The position is an unusual one. He says lie really did it. In the eyes of the law both are guilty. You can call him.

Campbell then went into the witnessbox and s aid his wife was in ignorance of what was done to the girls. It was a secret method or treatment that was used and all that his wife did was to give care and attention to the patients. When Mr. Ringer was questioning Campbell, his Honour said: "I am not going to re-try the ca.se, Mr. Ringer. T will remand the prisoners for sentence till 2.15 p.m." This afternoon his Honour said the male accused has given evidence in the morning in support of his counsel’s statement that he was the more responsible party in the commission of an offence, of which moth prisoners had been found guilty. "1 adjourned the case in order to consider the matter. Such evidence is obviously open to the gravest suspicion and I have come to the conclusion that it ought not to be admitted or, if admitted, acted upon. If evidence as to separate guilt of thq prisoners was to be admitted, it should have been given during the trials. The facts have been concluded by the finding of the jury that both prisoners artguilty of the offence charged and I fully agree with the jury’s verdict. "Apart from this, I do not believe the male accused’s statement. I am unable to distinguish between cither prisoner. The reports show that an extensive practice has been carried on, whether for a long period or not. I have, however, only to sentence these prisoners to the particular act of which they have been found guilty and which resulted in the death of a woman. Each prisoner will be sentenced to seven years : imprisonment with hard labour.''