From the Southern Star, 6 February 1926, this interesting account of the trial of Herbert McBride Campbell and Wilfred Watkins for armed robbery of £70 from the Greystones sub-branch of the Northern Bank, the robbers having arrived and left on a motorcycle without disguise. The remarkable Averil Deverell BL, a Greystones woman herself, acted as barrister for one of the accused.
“Severe strictures were passed by Judge Doyle at Wicklow Circuit Court on the verdict of ‘not guilty’ brought in by a jury in the case of Wilfred Watkins, Greystones, in connection with the Greystones Bank robbery.
In the case of Herbert McBride Campbell, who, as already reported, was allowed out on bail, the plea was put forward that he was ‘morally unsound.’
Watkins was first put forward charged with armed robbery of the bank and with possession of a revolver.
Mr. Dickie, KC, who, with Miss Deverell, BL (instructed by Mr. JJL Murphy), appeared for Watkins, objected at the outset to the evidence of the other accused, Campbell, against Watkins being admitted.
Mr. Bewley, BL (instructed by Mr. A Cullen, State Solicitor) for the State, held that the evidence was admissible.
Evidence was then given by Campbell, the bank officials, and other witnesses, similar to that given at the District Court.
The jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ on all counts, and his Lordship, in discharging the prisoner, said that it was a great satisfaction to him to feel he had no responsibility for that verdict.
Campbell was then put forward, and pleaded ‘guilty’.
Mr. Lupton, KC, who (instructed by Messrs. E Byrne), appeared for accused, pleaded for leniency, and submitted that the accused was morally unsound as distinct from intellectually unsound, the only plea the law allowed. This contention was now being widely accepted. Accused was irresponsible and unsound, very susceptible to influence and suggestion.
Evidence was given by Geo. Overend, Rev J. Tobais, Robert E Maguire, and Herbert Miller of accused’s irresponsible conduct and thoughtless practical jokes while a member of the Leeson Park troop of scouts, of which they were masters for several years. He seemed never to consider what would be the consequences of his actions or jokes, and had no conception of pain.
Instances quoted included: Lassoing the public from a roof; running up and down a roof until he fell through it; entering a swimming race when he knew nothing of swimming, and winning the first prize, admitting afterwards that he ran on the bottom.
His father related that, when a boy, accused sustained serious injury to the eye and never told of it, and ultimately lost his eye.
Dr Leeper, mental specialist, stated he had the accused examined in Mountjoy. He considered him unsound, and irresponsible, and egotistical.
Dr Hackett, prison doctor, said the accused was perfectly sane and capable of pleading, but he admitted he was not altogether normal or morally sound. He lacked a certain amount of responsibility, and was full of puppyism and swelled headedness.
His lordship said that he had expressed the view they were equally guilty, and, if Watkins had been found guilty, had intended sentencing them both to the same punishment – penal servitude – allowing the consideration of this question of moral unsoundness to be treated by the medical authorities while he was undergoing sentence; but in view of the fact that Watkins had been allowed to go free he could not sentence this man to imprisonment. It would not, he believed, be fair, and might give a certain amount of encouragement to the committing of crime, in the hope that when one came to trial one would find such a jury as Watkins did.
He allowed Campbell out on his own bail of £400 and two sureties of £200, to come up for judgment when called upon within the next five years.”
Share this:
