"NOT GUILTY"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22710, 24 October 1935, Page 2

"NOT GUILTY"

ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGE GROUND OF INSANITY YOUTH COMMITTED TO PAPAROA The jury yesterday returned a verdict of not guilty on all three counts in the case in which John Haig Roebuck, a youth aged 16, was charged with attempting to murcler Mrs Henderson at Tapui, North Otago, on August 11, and alternatively with wounding Mrs Henderson with intent to do her grievous bodily harm and assaulting her so as to cause her actual bodily harm. The verdict was given on the ground that Roebuck was insane at the time he committed the offence. After hearing the verdict, his Honor directed that he should be kept in strict custody at Paparoa till the pleasure of the Minister of Justice was known. Roebuck was represented by Mr R. D. H. Swindley. HEARING OF EVIDENCE CONCLUDED When the case was resumed yesterday morning Dr Hayes continued his evidence. In answer to a question by Mr Adams whether the accused understood the physical nature of the act as distinguished from ijfcs moral quality, witness said he thought the accused was aware of what he was doing. In regard to the term " understood," he did not think the accused appreciated why ho was doing it, the meaning of the result of his action. To Mr Swindley, witness said he thought he had obtained from the accused all he could tell him. He had no reason to think that the accused was untruthful. Witness agreed with the statement made by Professor Shelley that the accused on the night of the crime was suffering from partial dissociation, which began when he awoke and commenced thinking over his past life. Mr Swindley: What is meant by dissociation? —It means a group of ideas operating independently of the main personality. Witness said he thought the partial dissociation continued until the accused got back to bed again and included the time when he struck Mrs Henderson. Later, witness said that from the medical point of view the accused was insane at the time he committed the crime; so much so that he was certifiably insann when witness examined him. His state had been gradually developing over the past year or two, but he did not think that the ease had developed to a very advanced form. His Honor: Was the accused in your opinion capable of understanding that he was striking at Mrs Henderson or a human being with a knife or a weapon on the night of August 11?—He was capable of knowing it, but not of understanding the meaning. He knew he was striking the woman, but how he came to do it or why, I don't think he would know.

Then was he in your opinion at that time capable of knowing that that was a wrong thing to do? —Yes. Dr M. Brown, senior assistant medical officer at Seacliff, with 14 years' experience of mental disease, said he had examined the accused. He made an intelligence test, and his intelligence quotient was from 80 to 85, which indicated that he was dull or backward or a high-grade feeble-minded. At the time of the accused's stay in Seacliff, witness thought he was certifiably insane. Eh thought he was still certifiable. Mr Adams: Have you formed an opinion whether the accused at the time he committed the crime knew that he was striking a woman with a knife? — Yes. I think he knew. This concluded the hearing of evidence. ADDRESS FOR THE DEFENCE In his address to the jury, Mr Swindley said that the real and only issue in the case was whether or not in n legal sense the accused was sane or insane at the time he attacked Mrs Henderson. There was no argument about the material facts. 'The only contest concerned the state of the accused's mind at the time he committed the crime. «T.n no circumstances were the jury invited to bring in an ordinary verdict of acquittal. Counsel went on to say that if they found the accused not guilty on grounds of insanity they must not think he would be let loose on society. He would, on the contrary, be detained under strict observation, and would receive guidance. If they found that he was not insane at the time, he would be punished and properly so. Was there, counsel asked, evidence that the accused was suffering from mental disease on that night? There was the most convincing and clearest proof, not only by the defence's experts but also by those called by the Crown. Both Dr Hayes and Dr Brown had said that on the night of August 11 "the accused was Buffering from a form of mental disease. To what extent did that mental disease exist? Did he understand the nature and quality of the act and that it was wrong? There lay the issue. Both Dr Beale and Professor Shelley had said that in their opinion the accused did not know the nature and quality of his act. Tf the jury accepted this, the verdict should be not guilty, oir the grounds of insanity. Counsel went on to say that, if the Crown case was correct, and the boy knew what he was doing that night, then he had done this thing to a woman who had been his friend, with an entile and complete absence of motive. The Crown had been unable to advance any motive for a crime which, it held, was committed while the accused was sane. Was that consistent with sanity? Afier saying that the attack on Mrs Henderson could have served no possible purpose, counsel referred to the actions of the accused after the crime was committed. He had dropped the knife, walked out of the house to his hut, and gone off to sleep. Was that the action of a boy who knew what he had done? Would not the first act of a normal person in such circumstances be to flee? Counsel suggested that the boy had acted as he had done because there had been nothing on his mind to worry him, for the simple reason that he did pot know that he had done anything wrong. Had he been sane would he know ingly have left trnccs behind of his connection with the crime? He deliberately left a pair of mud-stained socks beside his bed and left the knife in the house. He had done this because he did not know that he had been responsible for the attack. Counsel also referred to the suggestion made by the Crown that there was some guile revealed in the boy's behaviour in making his first statement to the police in which he s:iid he knew nothing about, what had happened. Mr Swindley contended that every other detail of the statement was perfectly correct and that, therefore, they could not challenge his last statement that he knew nothing about what had happened. Tf they took the Crown's view they would have to accept the fact. that the boy overnight was transformed into a criminal who deliberately and knowingly attacked Mrs Henderson. He asked them to accept the evidence of Professor Shelley and Dt Beale and adopt the conclusions they had arrived at.

THE CROWN'S ARGUMENT. Mr Adams said that counsel for the defence had completely misunderstood what he was likely to do if he thought that the Crown suggested that the boy was completely sane at the time He might, however, be insane and yet criminally responsible. The question was not one of insanity versus sanity, There were two types of insanity—that which involved criminal responsibility, and legal insanity, which absolved from criminal responsibility. He suggested that the members of the- jury should limit their thoughts to the questions whether the accused knew, the nature and quality of his act and knew that it was wrong. It might well be that a person was insane and yet know that what he was doing was wrong, and his position legally differed in no wise from that of a person who, being sane, knew what was wrong and yet did it. If they took the accused's second statement to the police it gave the position of a person who knew throughout what he was doing and knew at the time that it was wrong. The members of the jury need have no hesitation in accepting this view, if it appealed to their common sense, for it was accepted by medical experts also. The question was not whether the accused was able to control his evil impulse, but simply if he knew what he was doing and knew that ; t was wrong. The plea of uncontrollable impulse was not a defence which was recognised by law. The explanation of the defence that when he committed the offence the accused was an absolute automaton with no consciousness of what he was doing involved a wide stretch of imagination in view of the boy's clear account on August 18. Nowhere there would they find any statement by the accused that he was at any time unaware of the events of the night or that they at any time came back to his memory. The view adopted by, the defence's experts was not a statement of simple facts, but a theory of what they thought had occurred. They also advanced the theory that when the accused made his second statement the police came to him at the exact moment when the reproduction in his memory of the events of the night was complete. Counsel suggested that the memory of these events was there all the time and the accused could have related the facts on the morning after the crime. Counsel concluded by saying that if the members of the jury directed their attention to the second statement and put theorisings out of their minds they would have no difficulty in arriving at a proper decision. DIRECTIONS TO JURY In the course of his summing up, his Honor said that every person was presumed to be sane at the time of committing an act until the contrary was proved. If it appeared to the jury that at the time the act was committed the accused was legally insane then he was free from criminal responsibility for his act, and it was their duty, though they found the act proved, to acquit him because of his insanity, and give a verdict of not guilty. After reviewing the evidence on the material facts of the case, his Honor said that the first question for the jury to decide was: Was the act done while the accused was labouring under a disease of the mind? If that were answered in the affirmative, the second question was: Was he labouring under a disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act? If that question were answered in the affirmative, there was a further question which must be answered: Did the disease of the mind render him incapable of knowing that such an act was wrong? After his Honor had traversed the expert medical evidence on the mental state of the accused, the jury retired at 4.40 p.m. It returned approximately 40 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty on all three charges. The jury was asked to answer two questions: (1) Do you find that the accused was insane at the time he committed the offence. (2) Do you declare that he was acquitted thereof on account of his insanity. The answer in both cases was in the affirmative in respect to each count. His Honor said the course to be followed was prescribed by statute. The court ordered that Roebuck should be kept in strict custody in Paparoa prison till the pleasure of the Minister of Justice was known.