QUESTION OF SANITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22709, 23 October 1935, Page 3

QUESTION OF SANITY

YOUTH ON TRIAL ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGE -EXPERT EVIDENCE CALLED The trial of John Haig Roebuck, a youth aged 16, on a charge of attempting to murder Mrs Henderson at Tapui, North Otago, was continued yesterday. He also faces alternative charges of wounding Mrs Henderson with intent to do her grievous bodily harm and assaulting her so as to cause her actual bodily harm. The accused, who is represented by Mr R. D. H. Swindley, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, but the defence line not contested the Crown evidence, pointing to his guilt, and has asked the juryto consider one question only—whether the accused was sane or insane in a legal sense at the time he committed the crime. The court yesterday heard lengthy expert evidence regarding the mental state of the accused at the time the crime was committed. The defence called as experts Professor Shelley, of Canterbury College, and Dr T. M. Beale, of Christchurch. Evidence for the Crown was being given by Dr H. D. Hayes when the court adjourned till this morning. POLICE EVIDENCE The last of the Crown's evidence regarding the commission of the crime was called yesterday morning. Sergeant M'Gregor, of Oamaru, said that he saw the accused on August 11. Witness did not observe anything peculiar about him. Witness gave evidence regarding his examination of Henderson's house. He was present at an interview between the accused and Detective Thomas in the accused's whare. In the course of this interview the accused had said that he was responsible for Mrs Henderson's injuries, and he would tell all about it. The accused had said, " I don't know what made me do it. I have been a silly young fool." He then started to cry and said it was a good thing that Mrs Henderson did not die, and if she had died there would have been " H to pay." He had added, " I am relieved to tell you and get it off my mind." Witness said he had seen the accused every day up till August 18, and he never saw anything abnormal in his conduct or manner. He had during that time been carrying on his ordinary work. Detective Thomas, of Timaru, corroborated the evidence regarding the examination of Henderson's house. Witness stated that he interviewed the accused on August 18. The accused said that he had attacked Mrs Henderson, but he did not intend to kill her. He said something had come over him which made him do it, and he was sorry for what he had done. During the interview witness noticed nothing abnormal about the accused. He appeared to be quite relieved to tell the story of what had occurred. He did not seem surprised. Witness read a statement made by the accused in which he admitted committing the crime. The accused stated that when he went to bed he had no idea of doing Mrs Henderson any injury. After he woke up later in the night he thought over his past life and got the idea in his mind that his aunt was responsible for breaking up his home, and that he would like to pay her back in some way. After explaining how he went to the house, something " urging him on," the accused stated that until he got to the passage he had not decided what he would do or whom he would injure. He could not explain why he picked on Mrs Henderson. The accused outlined his- movements, and told how after slashing Mrs Henderson he went back to bed and slept. To Mr Swindley: On the days on which lie spoke to the accused he did not 6ee anything abnormal about him. This concluded the evidence for the Crown. THE DEFENCE OUTLINED Mr Swindley, outlining the case 'for the defence, said that so far as the evidence called by the Crown was concerned it was in no way disputed. The only question for the jury to consider was whether the accused was in a legal sense sane or insane at the time he committed the deed. There were degrees of unsoundness of mind as of everything else, and the law of the country had fixed a degree which could be applied. If this was attained no person could be convicted of an offence. It was laid down by the law that no .person could be convicted of ah act done while labouring under a delusion or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act, and of knowing that such an act was wrong. Counsel went on to say that if they excluded the second statement of the accused submitted by the police—that taken by Detective Thomas —then in every respect, from every point of view, the whole of the evidence not only strongly favoured insanity, but could not be reconciled on any other basis. After striking Mrs Henderson, the accused had walked out of the house, gone to his bed, and gone to sleep, remaining asleep till 3.45 a.m., when he was awakened by a constable. That was an important consideration. Quite apart from expressions oj opinion by medical experts, it was open to the jury to consider whether on the evidence the inference could be drawn by them of insanity. The extraordinary conduct of the accused continued after the crime. If he had known the nature of what he had done, would he have gone back to the hut and slept? Obviously he went to sleep because there was nothing in his mind; he had no conscience. Had he been normal he would have made some attempt to get away. Counsel also asked the jury to consider whether, if the accused had been intent on destroying life, he would have made only one slash at Mrs Henderson. Up till as late as August 14 he continued to do ordinary work. Would they expect that of a boy who had knowingly tried to end the life of a woman? Counsel emphasised the fact that the accused had no motive to commit a crime. He was on the friendliest of terms with Mrs Henderson, who was very fond of him. Henderson had said that he had always found the boy trustworthy and reliable. That was the boy whom the jury must identify as the person who did that fiendish act that night. Counsel said the whole thing was done without a shadow of purpose. If it was suggested by the Crown that he had some idea of revenging himself on his aunt, that would lead to an absurdity, and when they were dealing with unsoundness of mind they were dealing with absurdities. How could he revenge his aunt by attacking Mrs Henderson? Counsel again said that in the legal sense the boy did not know what he was doing that night. PROFESSOR SHELLEY CALLED The first witness for the defence was Professor Shelley, of Canterbury College,, professor of education, acting professor of philosophy and director of the psychological laboratories at the college. He said that for the past 15 to 20 years he had had experience of mental cases. He had examined the accused twice at I'aparua prison for periods totalling three hours. He had put him through intelligence tests, but these were of a type which lie thought pertinent to the question. He submitted him to a standardised test, and the result was that the accused showed an intelligence quotient of SO to P 5. Witness explained Ihis by saying that if the intelligence of the average person of accused's age were counted as 100 and the intelligence of a child so mentally defective that it could not be educated at an ordinary school was counted at 70, then the accused's intelligence could be rated at from 80 to 85. In ordinary terms lie was dull or very dull. Mr Swindley: Was he, in your opinion, a person who understood the nature and quality of the act on the night he attacked. Mrs Henderson? —No, very definitely, no. Would he understand the physical nature of the acta at the time? —According to the result of the investigation I should say that not only would he not understand the physical nature of the act, but he was not even conscious of it. Witness then gave a detailed explanation of his opinion of the mental condition of the accused at the time the crime was committed. Tt was due. he said, to a gradual dissociation which came about after waking. "When he was waking

there was already partial dissociation. He amplified this statement by saying that when a man woke up at 1 a.m., when the whole of his system was at the lowest ebb in regard to controls, everything seemed to be out of proportion. That, he believed, was what had happened in this case, part from dissociation due to a complex very strongly associated with the breaking up of bis home, which came to his mind when he awoke. That partial dissociation, which was associated in his mind with the supposed action of his aunt, and aroused a certain attitude to her, was linked up with the most violent action of the previous day's experience. Usually in the middle of the night the sense impressions were those of the previous day. The previous day's experience in this case gave cue strong impression—the killing of a sheep for food. That provided the instrument whereby the partially dissociated complex could work. By that complex he was impelled—they would call it compelled—to do something. The evidence showed, from the accused's own frank admission, that he felt he was forced to do something. He then, not being conscious fully of what he was doing at the moment, got up, dressed and wandered into the house. That, with further analysis, could probably be explained. Gradually the dissociation became more and more complete and by the time he got into the house the dissociation was complete. When he committed the act he not enly did not know the nature and quality of his act, but was completely unconscious of it, and the performing of the act would be completely dissociated. The breaking through of the dissociation ol that complex was the scream of Mrs Henderson. He believed that, to a considerable extent, the accused was still dissociated when witness saw him last week. When dissociation of the type experienced by the accused at the time he committed the crime worked itself out usually it caused an exhaustion which resulted in deep sleep. Witness said that the second statement made by the accused to the police was consistent with the whole process. These things became photographically imprinted on the mind at the time, and as the dissociation broke down, then all the evidence relating to what had been done came vividly before the mind quite easily. Witness added that as a result of testing it waa shown _ that the accused, although his mentality was low, had the capacity to a high degree of visual motor imagery—a great capacity for recalling visual things. In answer to a question by Mr Swindley, Professor Shelley said dissociation was a mental disease. Mr Swindley: Was his act of strikiug Mrs Henderson of his own independent volition?—He had no volition at all when the act was committed. Witness was lenthily cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor regarding the method which he adopted in his examination of the accused, and the conclusions which he arrived at from this. Mr Adams: Would you say the accused was certifiably insane? —I am sorry I cannot answer that for the reason that to say a person is insane, to my mind, conveys an intention that the person at all times is more or less lacking in responsibility for his acts and words. It is quite possible for a normal person to be under the. influence of some repression complex and do things similar to what we are considering, but to be such that no medical man would ever certify him to be insane. At the time of the examination he may have /been perfectly sane?—The only qualification that I would make is that ■ there were signs of partial dissociation evident in the lack of emotion shown by the accused in certain circumstances. Witness added that in the ordinary sense of the word he would certainly say that the accused was not insane. EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION Dr T. M. Beale, of Christchurch. who was for 10 years at the Sunnyside Mental Hospital as medical officer in charge and who had had other experience in mental cases both in England and in New Zealand, said he had examined the accused on two occasions. As a result he came to the conclusion that he was simple, childish and mentally sub-normal. His memory for recent events, was not good. He showed not the slightest concern or distress in regard to the case. His intelligence quotient was low being not much above 70, which was imbecile point. From his examination of the boy, he would not have been prepared to certify him as insane. The absence of any emotion in the boy, however, was indicative of mental disease. At the time at which he attacked Mrs Henderson he was, in witness's opinion, suffering from mental disease. He defined this by saying that when a boy or girl reached the adolescent stage of life and got up against the realities of life, he or she, suffering from this disease, was unable to face these things and retired into a dreamland state of life. Mr Swindley: At the time at which he committed the act did he know the nature and quality of what he was doing and whether it was wrong?—l do not. think he knew either what he was doing or whether it was wrong. Did he possess the power of forming his own natural judgment?—No. What was that due to?—Mental disease. Do you think he was suffering from an irresistible impulse?—Yes, I think he was. Was that due entirely to mental disease? —Yes. Witness said he did not think that the accused had sufficient mentality to possess any guile. Mr Adams: Can you tell me the point at which he ceased to know what he was doing?—No, I can't. Do you consider that he is certifiably insane? —That is a difficult question. At the present time his mental condition is in abeyance. I would recommend that he should be put somewhere where he could be kept under observation. This concluded the evidence for the defence. crown's medical evidence Mr Adams said he proposed to call medical evidence in rebuttal of the suggestion of insanity. The first of the Crown's medical experts was Dr H. D. Hayes medical superintendent of the Seacliff Mental Asylum. He said that the accused was in the asylum for a period, during which witness examined him. His intelligence was tested and this showed that his quotient was about 84, conforming to a high-grade feeble-minded person. It was not correct to suggest that he approached the imbecile stage, for he was higher than that. Witness said he thought the accused suffered from a degree of mental disease at the time the crime was coinemitted. He knew what he was doing at the time and knew it was wrong. Witness said that during his examination of the accused he had shown that he had the idea that his aunt in some way had treated him badly. He had always been brooding over this and had day-dreams about it, the contents of which were that he would like to be wealthy, employ lawyers and pay back his aunt. He could offer no support for his views concerninc his aunt. On the night on which he committed the crime, he _ was turning these things over in his mind when he went to bed. He woke up and felt a desire "to get back on his aunt." The accused had added, "It wasn't that either; I had a feeling of a power of evil." This made him go to the hut, procure a knife, and go to the bedroom of Mrs Henderson. He said he could not remember striking her. When she screamed he said lie had realised whom he had struck. Witness had questioned him whether he had realised what he was doing before that. He had replied, ''Yes, but this power of evil kept working and a power of good was trying to prevent it. Of course, the evil won." The accused had said that, he felt muddled at the time. Asked why he did not run away, he said it would have been of no use. He could give no reason for the assault and witness was satisfied he knew of no reason. Mr. Adams: Was be at the time of the examination certifiably insane?—l think so. Witness added (hat in view of his lack of appreciation of his recent conduct, his feeble-mindedness and his emotional indifference he considered that the accused might still be suffering from a mental disease and be certifiable. Witness was still in the box when the court adjourned till to-day.