ARMSTRONG MURDER

Wairarapa Times-Age, 22 July 1938, Page 6

ARMSTRONG MURDER

SUMMING UP BY CHIEF JUSTICE ALTERNATIVES SUBMITTED TO JURY. THE ONUS ON THE CROWN. / (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Summing up in the trial of Douglas Alexander Armstrong on a charge of murdering his father, the Chief Justice, the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers, said Mr'H. F. O’Leary, counsel for accused, had complained of the currency of false rumours and of unfair publicity. He knew nothing of either one or the other and nothing was before him on the matter except what Mr O’Leary had said. “’One hears,” said Sir Michael, “and perhaps one knows that in some countries when what appears to be a sensational crime has been committed, newspapers may send out reporters and scouts to gather and publish information from all kinds of persons, including those who may be witnesses in the event of some person being apprehended and required to stand trial on a charge of having committed the crime. Such a practice, particularly in a small country like this, is, I think, to be deprecated as being calculated to prejudice the interests of justice. I know the subject is a difficult one. It is impossible to dogmatise, but the difficulties may be very much reduced, if not avoided altogether, by the exercise of careful discretion on the part of the newspaper press. I do not know in this case what, if any, justification there is for Mr O’Leary’s complaint, but I do feel that, in view of. that complaint, a , note of caution is in place.” The Chief Justice said the case would have been one to be determined on circumstantial evidence had it not been for the statement made by the accused to the police but even if no statement had been made by the accused, the jury would probably have had no difficulty in finding that the accused was the person responsible—his Honour did not mean criminally responsible, for that involved other considerations —for the death of his father. Nevertheless, the onus of proof was on the Crown. It was for the Crown to prove that the death of Ed- ; win Armstrong was caused in such circumstances that it amounted to murder, or at least to manslaughter. “If the Crown fails to discharge that onus,” said Sir M. Myers, “if .it leaves you any reasonable doubt upon any necessary ingredient of the offence, it will be your duty to find that he is not guilty, because the Crown must prove its case.”

A reasonable doubt, his Honour con--tinued, was not a vague and imaginary doubt, created for the purpose of raising doubt in order to avoid respon-. sibility. The doubt must appeal to the jury’s sense of judgment as a doubt. Mr O’Leary had said, his Honour observed, that the killing of deceased was ■either done in self-defence or was'justified by provocation. Counsel had rightly said that if the jury could see their way so to find, the verdict should be one of not guilty. If that did not appear as a reasonable inference from the evidence, then the killing was culpable and the verdict must be one of either murder or manslaughter. ' j After the summing up the jury retired at 11.37 o’clock this morning.