A NEW DEFENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10610, 8 June 1920, Page 6

A NEW DEFENCE

UNIQUE PLEA AT AUCKLAND INTERESTING EVIDENCE AT SUPREME COURT. TER TRESS ASSOCIATION. AUCKLAND, June 7. ‘‘The uncontrollable .action of tho sub-conscious 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 To Puke, on -May Ist, indecently assaulted a boy of nine years.

The Hon. J. A. Tolc, K.C., for the Crown, in the course of the proceedings, pointed out that in tho Thaw case in America, the ‘‘brain storm” find the “'unwritten law” wore pleaded, and now there was this new defence,' with special application to returned soldiers. Tlfb jury had to bo 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 his having suffered pains in tho head after an operation for wounds in the neck. He recollected speaking to tho hoy at To Puke, but did not remember committing the alleged offence. Medical evidence in support of tho prisoner's contention was given by Dr. Peter A. Lindsay, of Auckland, who stated that he had examined tho accused and felt that the court should give him every consideration. Ho considered that Hill did not have a clear mental idea of what he was doing because his mental control had failed to function, and ho was sufferling from psycho-neurosis. Dr. Cyril H. Tewslcy, who also examined accused, said’he believed that accused did not know what he was doing or the nature of his act. Witness would not have certified to him as being insane three or four hours after the offence, but he would certify that he had lost his self-control, and that he 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, the gaol surgeon, ’who had also examined tile accused, expressed the opinion that the prisoner knew the nature and quality of the net alleged, and that he knew it was wrong. Dr Beattie further expressed the opinion tliat Hill had never suffered from psycho-neurosis at any time. Mr Tide pointed out to’ the jury that tho defence sot up was not known in law, and the prisoner could be acquitted only if ho were found insane. They would bear in mind, however, that not one medical man would say that Hill was insane.

His Honour, in summing up, said that tho legal terminology of the defence was that accused was insane in law. Where a crime was committed only imbecility or “disease of tho mind” to such an extent as to render accused incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act 'would excuse him.

Hie jury, after an hour’s deliberation, found the prisoner guilty. Tho passing of sentence was deferred.