R v Arnold*
| Author | A.A.B. |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486586900200307 |
| Published date | 01 September 1969 |
| Date | 01 September 1969 |
176 AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMlNOLOGY (1969): 2,"3
306).
The
line
adopted
by
the
trial
Iudge
in
his
charge
to
the
jury
was
that,
first,
the
jury
had
to be
satisfied
beyend
reasonable
doubt
that
it
was
the
action
of
the
accused
that
caused
the
death.
If
the
jury
agreed
with
that
then
they
should
consider
whether
they
were satisfied on a
balance
of
probabilities
that
the
accused,
at
the
time
of
the
act,
was
insane
in
the
legal sense.
Then,
thirdly,
if
they
were
not
satisfied
with
the
defence
of
insanity
they
had
to see
whether
the
Crown
had
made
out
that
the
act
was
voluntary
and
if
they
considered
the
act
was
not
voluntary
(the
defence
of
automatism)
the
proper
verdict would be
an
acquittal
simpliciter.
Finally,
if
insanity
was
rejected
and
the
act
considered voluntary,
then
the
jury
should
consider
whether
or
not
the
accused
had
a
murderous
intent.
If
their
concluslon
was
that
he
did
not
have
a
murderous
intent
then
the
verdict
should
be guilty of
manslaughter.
- A.A.B.
Rv
Arnold*
Heard
in
the
Supreme
Court
(Menhennitt,
J.)
at
Melbourne, Victoria, May 1969.Unreported.
A, who was a single
male
aged 22 years, lived for
the
two
years
prior
to
the
trial
with
a
girl
of
about
his
own
age
on a de
[acto
basis,
After
they
began
liv1ng
together,
largely
on money
earned
by
the
girl as A
had
given
up
hls
job
as a
merchant
seaman,
both
became
drug
abusers
and
drug
dependent
persons -
mainly
with
marihuana,
amphetamines
and
barbi-
turates.
In
August 1968
both
A
and
his äe
tacto
wife
attempted
sulcide
and
were
eventually
admltted
to a
psychlatrtc
centre;
Abeing
thought
initially
to
be
suffering
from
schizophrenia
but
finally considered
to
be a
psychopathie
personality.
After
the
girl was
discharged
from
the
centre
A
absconded
in
order
to
[oln
her
and
together
they
took a
hotel
room
where
both,
agam,
made
asuicidal bid:
after
smoking
"Pot"
they
both
took
some 200 capsules
of
Nembutal
(50mgm. capsules) by
mouth.
When
they
were
both
found
about
36
hours
later
the
girl was
dead
and
A was seriously physically
il1.
A
was
eharged
with
murder.
Although
charged
with
murder
Awas
eommitted
for
trial
by
the
Coroner
for
"feloniously
and
unlawfully
killing" S. However,
the
Crown
presented
A
before
the
Supreme
Court
on
murder.
After
preliminary
discussion
the
Crown
further
presented
Ain
relation
to
the
statutory
offence of
aiding
and
abetting
asuieide
(Crimes
Act,
1967).
In
the
event
A
pleaded
not
guilty to
murder
and
as
the
Crown
led
no
evidenee
the
jury
found
the
prisoner
not
guilty
by direetion.
Athen
pleaded
guilty
to
aiding
and
abetting
pursuant
to a suicide
pact,
the
Crown
aceepted
this
plea,
and
the
jury
found
that
the
death
of
the
girl was
pursuant
to a
suicide
pact.
Following
the
verdict
of guilty to
the
statutory
offenee,
the
matter
became
a
plea
by eounsel
for
the
defenee
that
was
backed up by
psychiatrie
evidence.
This
evidence
was
to some
extent
eontested
by
the
Crown who
also called,
with
the
permission of
the
Court,
"rebutting"
psychiatrie
testi-
mony.
The
outcome of
the
plea
was
that
A
was
senteneed
to
three
years
imprisonment,
a
minimum
term
before
becoming
eligible
for
parole
being
fixed
at
twelve
months.
-
A.A.B.
• For a more eomplete diseussion of the ease see Bartholomew, Ä.A. (1969) "The Survivor of a
Suieide Pact: R v
Arnold"
Aust.N.Z.J.Psychiat. In press.
To continue reading
Request your trial