Legal Puzzle for Appeal Court

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 150, 27 June 1945, Page 5

Legal Puzzle for Appeal Court

Sequel to Double Murder • By 13-year-old Boy (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 26. The Court of Appeal commenced the hearing of the case stated for the opiu ion of the Court by Mr. .Justice Blair arising out of the trial of Noel Ingram Brooks, a boy aged 13A years, for the murder of his mother and brother, Clarence Brooks, at, M&larawa, near Greytowu, on March I*. Counsel for the prisoner was Mr. O. C. Mazengarb and Mr. C. H. Taylor appeared for the Crown. At the trial the evidence was that the mother was shot first and instantaneously killed and the brother was then shot twice immediately afterwards. No evidence was culled for the defence and Dr. Mazengarb did not raise the defence of insanity to either of the charges. On tlie contrary he repudiated such defence and rested the ease for the defence in respect of the first count (the murder of the mother) upon the theory of accidental shooting while “fooling” with a rifle. He did not submit to the jury that the shooting of the boy, Clarence, was accidental but put it that accused having accidentally shot the mother was so horrified by the act that he completely lost his head and when in that state shot his brother.

The Croxfn as part of its ease called three medical experts two of whom. Doctors Lewis and Coulson, expressed the view that accused suffered from a mental disease. The third medical expert, Dr. Hay, did aot agree with this view. The trial jury brought in the following verdict: “We find Noel Brooks not guilty on both counts, but add in the form of a rider that he become a ward of the State until he becomes 2J years of age.” There being a verdict of not guilty as to each count and evidence having been given as to accused’s mental state the presiding judge, pursuant to the provisions of section 31 of the Mental Defectives* Act, asked the jury the question whether he was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, and to say whether he had been acquitted on account of his insanity. Dr. Mazengarb submitted that on the jury’s verdict accused was entitled to acquittal on both counts, and after a discussion tho following issues, both limited to the second count only, were put to the jury: (1) seeing that accused at the time of the commission of the second offence was of the age of only approximately 134 years, then eliminating the question of any mental disorder was lie of sufficient mental capacity to know that the acts committed by him were wrong? (2) At the particular moment following the death of his mother and eliminating any question of mental disorder, did he know that his subsequent acts in relation to his brother were wrong? The jury answered the first question: “Yes” and second question as follows: “Unable to answer in its present form owing to our inability, in the facts of ihe case, to eliminate the question of mental disorder.” Accused was discharged on the first count in the indictment mother). On May 4 the meauiug of the verdict on the second count was argued at some length and His Honour agreed to state this case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The questions put to the Court are :(1) Had the Crown the right to produce evidence as to prisoner’s mental condition when the defence itself refused, to raise the defence of accused’s insanity and repudiated any such defence? (2) Had the trial judge in the circumstances disclosed any right or authority to submit to the jury the question provided to be put as set out in section 31 of the Mental Defectives Act? (3) Is the verdict upon the second count coupled with the jury’s answer to the question put pursuant to section 31 of the Mental Defectives’ Act, 1911, a verdict of acquittal upon the ground of his insanity? (4) If so should the course laid down in sub-sec-tion (2) of the said section 31 be fol lowed? (That is to say should the prisoner be ordered to be kept in custody until the pleasure of the Minister of Justice is known ) (3) If the foregoing questions (3) and (4) are answered in whole or in part in the negative, what course should be followed thereon? (6) Accused at the time of the alleged offence being 13 years six months and eight days, can he be convicted or otherwise dealt with on the second count oi the indictment in view of the answers by the jury as set out above? (7) Have the requirements of section 42 of the Crimes’ Act, 1908, been complied with, and if not what must be done by reason thereof? (This section provides that no person over seven years and under fourteen shall be convicted of a crime unless the jury is of opinion that he knew that what he had done was wrong) (8) If an infant accused person under 14 years of age is acquitted by reason of temporary insanity, is the course to be followed an unqualified acquittal by reason of the provisions of section 42 of the Crimes’ Act, or should such an acquittal be treated as an acquittal upon the ground of insanity pursuant to section 31 of the Mental Defectives’ Act, 1911?