Queen v Lagit [1961] PGSC 6 (7 July 1961)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
TERRITORY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA.

THE QUEEN.

against

NICHOLAS LAGIT of ABAR

Criminal Trial ('Gore, J.) at Madang

5th, 6th and 7th July, 1961.

INSANITY - GRANDIOSE PARANOIA - DELUSIONS.

LAGIT arranged for a Catholic bishop to visit his flock in GAREGUT, the village of his very great friend LOREN and, as part of the arrangements, he had a large enclosure made as a sort of courtyard to the entrance of the house the bishop stayed in. The fence of the enclosure was 6 feet high and excluded observation from the village. After certain ceremonies according to the rites of his church, the Bishop went into his house to pack, whereupon LAGIT addressed the people to the effect that he had had successes in the past which were solely due to his own efforts and he ended by asking the people if they wished him to "do something" which "they could see". On the people voicing their agreement he told the leaders to enter the enclosure and stand along one side of it. Then he told one of the leaders to bring the Bishop down into the enclosure. When all were assembled he were through a covered opening in the opposite side of the enclosure carrying a long and ancient knife (3 feet long) in his right hand. Presently he returned with LOREN. They came into the enclosure "hand in hand as two friends going for a stroll". When they reached the centre of the enclosure LOREN raised his left arm - his right hand still in LAGIT's left hand - and, raising his head skywards, thrust his neck out. LAGIT chopped his neck with the knife and LOREN fell down dead. No-one knew what it was LAGIT was going to do that they "could see" and the psychiatric evidence was that LOREN had given LAGIT secret information that if LAGIT would spill. LOREN's blood a new era
would dawn - kind of Utopia. The psychiatrist diagnosed the disease of the mind: grandiose paranoia, and gave evidence that a person suffering from it would not have the capacity to know that he ought not to do what he did - that, on the contrary, his delusion would be such that he would believe that what he did was eminently right.

HELD (i) The Court is "not bound to find in accordance with the medical evidence because the medical attitude may not be in accordance with the legal view. But the medical opinion must be regarded with much respect." (para 17)

(ii) In considering whether the defence has established, on the balance of probabilities, (para 6.) that the accused was of unsound mind at the time he killed LOREN, "one may consider LAGIT's conduct before, at the time of, and after the event" (para 16.) in addition to the medical evidence.

(iii) A reasonable jury would find that LAGIT was insane at the time he killed LOREN and he is so found by the Court.

A.J. Quinlivan, Chief Crown Prosecutor, for the Crown.

W.A. Lalor, Public Solicitor, for the Defence.

Editors Note

Because the press consistently called this a case of "ritual killing" and referred to a "black rooster" this report would be an incomplete record if we did not note that:

(i) although the killing could be called "ceremonial" in the sense that it was theatrically staged, it was a single act (without precedent anywhere or at any time) done as a result of a secret kept between two people. It presumably will not be repeated since one of the men is now dead and the other confined as criminally insane.

(ii) According to the evidence and the experts, the only significance of the rooster is that it was set aside as an item for dinner.

On 7th July, 1961, His Honour delivered the following judgment:-

GORE, J.

In this case the Accused is charged with the wilful murder of one LOREN, a male Native of the village of GAREGUT, Gore, J. on the 7th May, 1961.

A person is guilty of wilful murder if he unlawfully kills another intending to cause death. There is not in this case any relief from criminal responsibility such as accident, provocation or mistake, so that consideration of relief, by reason of those matters, can be dispensed with.

There is, however, a presumption that every person is of sound mind, and he is not ciminally responsible for what-ever offence he has committed if he is not of sound mind at the time of the commission of the act which constitutes the offence.

There is no doubt that LOREN was killed by the Accused Nicholas LAGIT. The act of killing was in the presence of many witnesses and the Accused made a clean breast of the incident.

There is also not the slightest doubt about the intention of the Accused.

The Defence has set up insanity.

Now the burden of proof is laid upon the Crown to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the crime.

This burden is always on the Crown in criminal cases but there is an exception when the defence is insanity. Then the burden shifts from the Crown to the Defence. The Defence, however, in such a case has not to carry as heavy a burden as that laid upon the Crown, for the Defence does not have to remove all doubt but to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Accused was of unsound mind at the time when he committed the offence.

Well, I have no doubt that the accused killed LOREN and he intended to cause his death, so that the Crown has discharged the onus placed upon it.

It remains only to consider the Defence of insanity in relation to the charge.

Section 27 of the Criminal Code defines insanity as a relief from criminal responsibility in the following term: -

Gore,

J "A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

"A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the foregoing provisions of this section, is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist."

As to the requirements for relief of criminal responsibility as set out:- that he did not understand what he was doing and had not the capacity to control his actions, I need not dwe1l upon. The evidence showed that he knew only too well that he was killing LOREN, and his capacity to control his actions was obvious from the evidence.

It is only the remaining requirement which needs consideration upon the Defence. This is whether he had the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act of killing.

The Defence is that he was suffering from the delusion that the killing of LOREN was right.

It appears that from the second part of Section 27 a person who is affected by delusions on some specific matter but is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Section, is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist. I do not think that the words of that part can affect this case.

Although it is the state of mind at the time of the commission of the offence which is exclusively important, one might consider the facts both before and after the event. This is an odd case, - one which I should say would be regarded as peculiar anywhere. In it is bound up the confusion of a heathen people in the acceptance of Christianity. The Accused knew, as an ex-Catechist, that, it was wrong to kill according to the Christian belief. As a man often in touch with the Administration he would know that it was wrong in law.

The question is, using the words of the Section, whether he had the capacity to know that he ought not do the act. I do not think he had such capacity, for he firmly believed that the killing of LOREN was right, and he was unable to appreciate the wrongness of what he was doing because his understanding functioned only in relation to some weird salvation.

One may consider LAGIT's conduct before, at the time of, and after the event. He had taken a leading part in requesting Bishop Noser of Alexishafen to pay a visit to Garegut for the purpose of conducting religious services there. He entered into the services. He made the arrangements for them. He brought out LOREN, who was as a son to him coming hand in hand as two friends, and then killed him, a willing person, in front of his own Bishop, whom he had requested to be present. Except LOREN, none of the important people assembled had any knowledge of what he was going to do. Then with several others he came to Madang and to the District Officer to tell him all about it and to receive from him approval for the killing of LOREN. He showed no contrition, but on the contrary was calm and collected, and indeed pleased with himself. He had no expectation of punishment for the killing of LOREN, knowing full well the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" - God's law - and the consequences for wilfully killing a person under the Law of the Land.

Now I am not bound to find in accordance with the medical evidence, because the medical attitude may not be in accordance with the legal view. But the medical opinion must be regarded with much respect. The medical opinion is given in this case by a psychiatrist who, from my observation and his record, possesses such learning and has had great experience in the field of insanity. Dr. Burton-Bradley, relying upon his examination and observation of the accused, told us the man suffered at the time, and is still suffering from, a disease of the mind which he described as "Grandiose paranoia," and that he is not likely to recover. He said, too, that he would, as a Medical Practitioner, certify him as insane, and he felt that other medical men would do the same.

I accept the opinion of the medical witness, Dr. Burton- Bradley, the more readily so when the matter is to be decided upon a balance of probabilities. I believe that a reasonable jury would do the same.

I find that the accused was insane at the time he killed LOREN.

The result is that I find Accused Not Guilty on the ground of insanity at the time of the offence.

The Accused will therefore be kept at Her Majesty's pleasure.