A NEW DEFENCE.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3507, 9 June 1920, Page 6

A NEW DEFENCE.

INTERESTING CASE AT"A.;L.'IVICK- ' LAND. ‘ ' L AUCKLAND; Juno 7. “The uncontrollable action of the subconscious mind” was pleaded as a defence by Alfred lHill (Mr Hampson), who was charged in the Supreme Court. before Mr Justice C11z1p11i"-£111 and ‘a jury with having at T 0 Puke, on May 1, ilxclccpntly assaulted a. boy of nine years.

Hon. J_ A. Tole, K.C., for the "Crown, in the course of i the .proceedin}gA, pointed out that in that case 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 had to be guarded against the introduction of new theories with regard to these men. They had everybody’s gratitude. They could not have special privileges in the administration 01' criminal law. ' Accused gave evidence of his war §e‘rvice' and of his lhaving sulféiredg pains in the head after an operation for wounds in the neck. He recollecting speaking to the boy at Te Puke, but did not remember committing the -alleged offence. I '

.Medical evidence in support. -of prisonei"s contention was give‘n'e:bj".‘ Dr. A. Lindsay; of .A.ueklana;=.\<+l:os btiarted 'that he"-' had ‘examined -'=the iiccuéedi-Wndlvfelt that the>' Court "shou'hi'- give: rhim every consideration. He considered that Hill did not Hérve clc3:irnzzreilt&~ knowledge (it I‘*n}lf§.’r;!:iie T?wa»§'«ir.ioing, .abecausE*<«his men‘l"a-1;? eontzrfil - lia>d.v“fai\}B'cEl‘ to i’ul‘lct'ion I an'd". he wins ssuiieréng nfirom-‘ phyt:’ho_neurosis. .t:'**r:'.rv'-9 ‘+o '~ I-I 3 Dr Cyril="E?."Terw3lcy«, rwho also examined the‘--aecused’,oE'aid he ~belie,\sed that he’ -accused didmot know whatuhe Was»-doing _or_ the nature of his act. Witness Woul_a_~not have certified him insane three or four hours after the offence, but‘ he‘ would certify that he ']lad'lostVhis self—control and that--he‘ had no power to distinguishe, when he ‘ didthe alleged act, whether he was]

doing right or wrong. Medical evidence in rebuttal was brought forward by the Crown. Dr. Beattie (superintendent of mental hospitals), Dr. Thomas Pettit (with five years’ experience of miltary hospitals), and Dr Murray (goal surgeon), who had also examined the accused, expressed the opinion that the prisoner‘ knew the. nature ana quaiity of the act alleged, and that he knew it was wrong. Dr. Beattie. further expressed the opinion tha E-ill had never suffered from phycho-neurlosis at any time. ‘ Mr Tole pointed out. to the jury that l

the defence set up was not known in law. Prisoner could be acquitted only if he were found insane. They would hear in mind, however, that not one medical man would say Hill was insane. ‘ ’ His Honour, sulnming up, said that the legal terminology of the defence was that accused was insane. In law, where a crime was committed only imbecility or “disease of the mind” to such ziuexterrt as to render the accused ineapblc of understanding the nature and quality of his act would excuse him. _

’l‘hr_~ jur_v, afor an hof11"s deliberaEtion, found the prisoner guilty. Sen fence was deferred}