28/07/2013

Delivery | Westlaw India

Page1

*898 Regina v Haynes 1 January 1859 (1859) 1 Foster and Finlason 666 175 E.R. 898 1859 [666] Summer Assizes, 1859. (After the cases for the prosecution and prisoner are closed, the Judge will not, at the suggestion of the counsel for the prosecution, examine a witness not before called. The circumstance of the prisoner having acted under an irresistible influence to the commission of homicide no defence, if at the time he committed the act he knew he was doing what was wrong.) [Referred to, R. v. Sullivan , [1923] 1 K. B. 47.] Murder. Insanity. The prisoner, a soldier, was charged with the murder of Mary MacGowan, at the Camp at Aldershott. The deceased was an unfortunate woman, with whom the prisoner had been intimate, and was on the most friendly terms up to the moment of the commission of the offence. No motive was assigned for the perpetration of the act, and general evidence was given that the prisoner, while in Canada, having seduced a young woman under a promise of marriage, which he had been unable to fulfil, by reason of his regiment having been ordered home, his mind had been much affected by the circumstance. Witnesses having been called for the defence, and Cole having replied on the part of the prosecution, he proposed to call the surgeon of the gaol, that he might ask him as to the state of the prisoner's mind. Edwards, for the prisoner, objected, as both the cases were closed. Bramwell, B.It is quite clear that counsel cannot call him, as the cases are closed; and if it were allowed, it would necessitate two more speeches. The only doubt I have is, whether I should examine him, as to which I will consult my brother Crompton.(Having done so.)We are both of opinion that it is better to abide by the general rule, and that it would be inexpedient to allow this fresh evidence to be gone into after the close of the whole case. (To the jury.)As to the defence of insanity set up for the prisoner, I will read you what the law is as stated by the Judges in answer to questions put to them by the House of Lords 1 .(Having done so.)It has been urged for the prisoner that you should acquit him on the ground that, it being impossible to assign any motive for the perpetration of the offence, he must have been acting under what is [667] called a powerful and irresistible influence, or homicidal tendency. But I must remark as to that, that the circumstance of an act being apparently motiveless is not a ground from which you can safely infer the existence of such an influence. Motives exist unknown and innumerable which might prompt the act. A morbid and restless (but resistible) thirst for blood would itself be a motive urging to such a deed for its own relief. But if an influence be so powerful as to be termed irresistible, so much the more reason is there *899 why we should not withdraw any of the safeguards tending to counteract it. There are three powerful restraints

28/07/2013

Delivery | Westlaw India

Page2

existing, all tending to the assistance of the person who is suffering under such an influencethe restraint of religion, the restraint of conscience, and the restraint of law. But if the influence itself be held a legal excuse, rendering the crime dispunishable, you at once withdraw a most powerful restraintthat forbidding and punishing its perpetration 2 . We must therefore return to the simple question you have to determinedid the prisoner know the nature of the act he was doing; and did he know that he was doing what was wrong. Guilty.Sentence, death. The prisoner was reprieved. ____________________________________________________________________ 0 1 1. In Macnaghten's case . 2. In the case of Mrs. Brough, indicted for the murder of her children, and tried at the Surrey Summer Assizes, 1856, coram Erle, J., the law was laid down precisely the same way: the defence set up being that of homicidal impulse, arising from insanity, suggested as having been likely to arise from a blow on the head. And see Reg. v. Higginson , 1 C. & K. 129.