A NEW DEFENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 9 June 1920, Page 1

A NEW DEFENCE

WOUNDED SOLDIER’S PLEA

AUCKLAND, June 7.

“ The uncontrollable action of the subconscious mind” was pleaded as a defence by Alfred Hill (Mr Hampton), who was charged in the Supremo Court, before Mr Justice Chapman and a jury, with having, at Te Puke, on May Ist, indecently assaulted a boy of nine years of age.

The Hon J. A. Tole, K.C., for the Crown, in the course of tlie proceedings, pointed out that in the,Thaw ease in America the “brain storm” and the “ unwritten law ” were" pleaded. Now there was this new defence, with special application to returned soldiers. The jury, he said, had to be guarded,against the introduction of new theories with regard to these men. They had everybody’s gratitude, but they could not have special privileges in the administration of the criminal law.

•The accused gave evidence of his war service, and of bis having suffered pains in the head after an operation for a wound in the neck. He recollected speaking to the boy at To Puke, but did not remember committing the alleged offence. Medical evidence in support of the prisoner’s contention was given by 'Dr Peter A. Lindsay, of Auckland, who stated that he had examined the accused, and he felt that the Court should give him every eonsideraion. He considered that Hill did not have a clear mental idea of what he was doing, because hi's mental control had failed, and he was suffering from psycho-neurosis.

Dr Cyril H. Tewsley, who bad also examined the accused, said he believed that the accused did not know what he was doing, or the nature of his act. Witness would not have certified him insane three of four hours after the offence, but lie would certify that he had lost his self-control, and that be had no power to distinguish when lie did the alleged act whether he was doing right, or wrong.

Medical evidence in rebuttal was brought forward by the Crown. Dr Beattie, Superintendent of the Mental Hospital; Dr Thomas Pettit, with five years’ experience of military hospitals; and Dr Murray, gaol surgeon, who had also examined the accused, ex. pressed the opinion that the prisoner knew the nature and quality of the act alleged, and that he knew it was wrong. Dr Beattie further expressed the opinion that Hill had never suffered from psycho-neurosis at any time. Mr Tole pointed out to the jury that the defence set up was not known in law. The prisoner could bo acquitted only if ’lie were found insane. They would bear in mind, however, that not one medical man would say that Hal was insane. His Honour, in summing up, said that the legal terminology of the de-

fence was that the accused was insane. In law, where a crime was committed, only imbecility, or “disease of mind” to such an extent as to render an accused incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act would excuse him. The Jury, after an hour s dehberalion, found the prisoner guilty. Sentence was deferred.