Husband Acquitted Of Attempted Murder

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30980, 9 February 1966, Page 14

Husband Acquitted Of Attempted Murder

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, February 8. After a retirement of more than six hours a Wellington jury tonight acquitted Adrian James Scurr, aged 21, a salesman, of a charge of attempting to murder his wife, Hillary Vonda Scurr, in a flat at Ngaio on Christmas Day by wounding her in the throat.

He was also acquitted of an alternative charge of wounding his wife with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but found guilty on a third count of injuring his wife in such circumstances that, if death had occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter. The jury recommended Scurr to the leniency of the Court. The Chief Justice (Mr H. R. C. Wild) remanded the prisoner for sentence. An application for bail was refused. Mr W. R. Birks, with him Mr M. B. Horton, appeared for the Crown. Scurr was represented by Mr M. A. Bungay. No evidence was called for the defence.

Lucy Vonda Archer, married, of Makererua street, Ngaio, said the complaintant was her daughter who, with the accused had occupied a downstairs flat at her house in Ngaiio. On the evening of December 24, witness said, the accused was dancing and drinking and appeared to be happy on the surface. But he was very moody by nature and unpredictable. After she had gone to bed, she heard her daughter arrive and enter the downstairs flat. It was quiet for a few minutes after she came in. The first noise she heard was her daughter saying, “No, Jim, don’t Jim.” Witness said she heard the bathroom door bang. She could hear the accused mumbling but could not hear what he said. The next thing she heard was the accused’s voice. He left repeating, “What have 1 done, what have I done?” been a number of times in the last four years when your daughter has inflicted wounds on herself?—Small wounds, but nothing to indicate suicide. My daughter has studied nursing. In other words she would know where to cut herself to attract attention?—Yes. “Someone Else” John Oubridge Mercer, medical practitioner and director of pathology at the Wellington Hospital, said that he had seen many instances of selfinflicted wounds on the neck but he thought the wounds of Mrs Scurr’s neck were more consistent with having been made by someone else. In his final address to the jury, Mr Birks said that it was clear on the evidence as a whole that it was Scurr who inflicted the injuries to his wife’s throat. Mr Birks said that the wounds, 12 in number, showed a grave intention to kill.

The evidence showed that Scurr knew what he was doing and this was an essential ingredient of the charge against him. Mr Bungay told the jury that the defence was that Scurr did not do an act unlawful or otherwise which caused the injuries to Mrs Scurr. “Figment” “The evidence of Mrs Scurr regarding the incidents in the bathroom on Christmas morning is nothing more than a figment of the imagination,’’ said Mr Bungay. He said that the episode in the bathroom rang true with her earlier attempts at suicide. Mr Bungay reminded the jury that the burden of proof was on the Crown, and it was a very high standard of proof. “If a doubt is present the accused must be acquitted on all three charges,” he said. Summing up to the jury, the Chief Justice said that ‘reasonable doubt’ did not mean vague or fanciful doubt conjured up by some sympathetic person to avoid an unpleasant duty. His Honour said as he understood it the defence was that the Crown had not proved the case against Scurr to the satisfaction of the jury and that the injuries had not been caused by Scurr but had been self-inflicted by Mrs Scurr. “You may think that Mrs Scurr is a person who leads an undesirable and disloyal life, but it is for you to decide whether she is untruthful,” said his Honour. “This is a case where strong emotions and passions are involved and you may have been disgusted and shocked at what you have heard during this trial. You may have prejudice on one hand and sympathy on the other, but you must put aside these matters and approach the matter with an open mind and judge it on the evidence.”