Verdict: Insane

[?]Le Murder

[?]E

OLE has been found insane and will not hang. An appeal was heard in Suva late March the verdict given on April 16. e hearing was made before the Court of Appeal; Mr. J. N. ;y appeared for Poole; Mr. B.

Doyle, QC, Fiji Attorney ral, and Mr. Justin Lewis for Drown. mbers of the Court of Appeal the Acting Chief Justice, Mr. r. Hammett, Mr. Justice nson and Mr. Justice Bagnall. his judgment, Chief Judge nett said the Court considered insane because, amongst other ns, of the frenzied way he the child and of his strange lour in the Lower Court. The also held that Psychiatrist J. urge’s evidence was inadmiss ecause it was prejudicial to the CG Honiara, BSIP, on February i Judicial Commissioner found guilty of having murdered a ir old Mala i t a boy in iber, 1955. An appeal was sub itly lodged on the grounds ome Crown evidence submitted niara was inadmissible).

Suva, in March, Mr. Falvey id that much of the evidence by Dr. J. McGeorge, Sydney atrist, was inadmissible; and 10 report of his examination used had been made available cused’s counsel (Mr. Dudley of Rabaul), who saw accused le first time on the night the trial; and that a con i obtained by Inspector id after questioning accused wo days was improperly ed. also submitted that the i Judicial Commissioner had y directed himself when, the report of the examina ‘ the prisoner had been made, id that he did not believe d when he said he did not what he was doing, ipplication for the calling of nedical evidence was refused ! Court. The Acting Chief stated that the Court of in Fiji had the same as the Court of Appeal in d and could hear fresh ;e only in exceptional cir nces, such as hearing ;e not available at the time trial, id been submitted that such :e was available, that the who gave evidence could icen cross-examined, or an iment sought in order to sxpert evidence. The defence ide a mistake in not cross ing Dr. McGeorge and lot seek to make good that ; now.

MR. B. DOYLE, in his case for the Crown, said that there was a vast difference between a doctor’s approach to insanity, and the Court’s approach. In the Poole case, it was known from the very start that insanity was to be raised by the defence, and evidence could have been called.

Mr. Doyle quoted cases to show that while it was practice to make medical reports available to the defence it was not obligatory.

However, he conceded that in the present case it should have been done. He contended that if all of Doctor McGeorge’s evidence were taken away there would be nothing left in favour of accused. There was no evidence that he was legally insane.

There was evidence that he “looked peculiar,” that one man stood on guard with a rifle, and that one woman had locked up her children, but the Court had to deal with probabilities. The only way to tell what was in Poole’s mind was by his acts.

Mr. Justice Bagnall said that apart from the statement by Poole to Mr. Hoey, Poole’s letter to his parents, and his answers to Dr.

McGeorge’s question he could see no evidence of Poole’s offence.

Mr. Doyle said the defence did not deny the murder. It relied on insanity.

The Acting Chief Justice: “You submit that it is sufficient to be able to uphold a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of accused.

The absence of corroboration is worrying me.”

Mr. Justice Bagnall pointed out that Dr. McGeorge said that he had known of cases where people had confessed to murders that they had never committed.

Mr. Doyle subsequently quoted precedents to show that if a con fession was given directly it was not necessary to have corroboration.

However, there was corroboration.

There was the fact that the body was found in accused’s house, that the murder was committed within four minutes of his entering his house; and there was corroboration in his statment to Father Hoey.

In his address in reply, Mr. Falvey submitted that the learned Judicial Commissioner had accepted the statements made by accused to the police and to the doctor before he had heard Dr. McGeorge’s evidence that accused was mentally deranged. Their Lordships were not suffering under the same disability as the Commissioner because they had the record before them, and, in considering the state ments knew what the Doctor had said.

He contended that if a man in the street, the type of man who makes up juries, was told about the facts surrounding the murder he would at once say Poole was mad.

He submitted that at the time of the act the accused was insane. t Residents of Rabaul, NG, are in favour of Japanese being permitted to salvage sunken ships in Rabaul Harbour. This was announced at April TAG meeting.