Sensational Trial Ends

Northern Advocate, 25 July 1938, Page 4

Sensational Trial Ends

THE conclusion of the Armstrong trial has brought to finality a case which bad features as sensational and gruesome as any in the history of New Zealand. The disposal of corpses in suitcases is, happily, a very rare occurrence in this country, and to this fart, no doubt, a great deal of public interest excited by the case utay be ascribed. Douglas Armstrong has now been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for manslaughter. In spite of obvious evidence that be ihad attacked his father with a knife, the Jury was led by the tragic circumstances of the Armstrong family’s domestic life, as well as by the extremely able presentation of the ease by the accused’s counsel, Mr H. P. O’Leary, K.C., to take a compassionate and. indeed, almost, lenient view. Thus Douglas Armstrong has escaped the death penalty, which British law imposes, save in exceptional circumstances, as the punishment for homicide. The public as a -whole, and especially the more sentimental section of it. will no doubt be gratified at this outcome of the ease. It can be said quite fairly that, on the evidence presented, Douglas Armstrong did not appear as 'an ordinary, vicious type of killer, who would ever plan to murder a man with the (more common criminal motives in mind. The jury, indeed, took the view that be was not this type of person, but bad killed bis father in self-defence, lor for the protection of the 'household. ■Students of the legal 'aspect of the ease, however, may view the result with a. certain amount of uneasiness. This was the second ease in a few months in which a young man had killed his father and escaped with a comparatively light penalty. In the first ease, a revolver was used, and two bullets were fired. In the second case, a knife was employed. In spite of this, tender-hearted juries gave the accused men the benefit of whatever margin of doubt could be said to have existed. It is necessary for 'the protection of society that in such cases juries should face their responsibilities squarely, courageously and honestly. They may be swayed by sentiment and pity, but experience overseas, particularly in America and in Australia, has shown that when sentiment influenced the Court of Justice in capital offences, a tendency towards increased crime was noticeable.