OVERVIEW OF THE CASE "REGINA versus RANDALL 1879". You don't mention which court heard this case or it's location. As the article refers at the end to "His Honour" and "jury" then it was not a magisterial court, but what we call, the Victoria County Court or the Victoria Supreme Court. The name of the Judge is not mentioned either. We must first take into account the person who transcribed the proceedings, and as it is a newspaper article, it may have been the journalist who wrote the article. He may have been either a University educated journalist or the "ambulance chaser" type with a lesser education. He or she may have properly or improperly transcribed the proceedings with an eye to "good copy". The transcriber has not differentiated between the evidence which was given by the witnesses without any prompting, the evidence which was given in answer to questions when "being led" by the prosecutor, and the evidence given in answer to cross-examination by any defence counsel or the Judge. Without such differentiation, confusion may arise in the reader's mind and cloud any proper objective assessment of the case. The case arose from what the police refer to as a "domestic". Such situations tend to be very bad and the outcomes tend to be tragic. Many people have been killed in such situations including police officers. Courts nowadays tread very warily over such ground due to the high emotional content which brings about tragedy, and what is first considered by any court is the weight of evidence and secondly the credibility of the victim(s) and witnesses. Credibility plays the biggest part and this is noticeable at the beginning of any testimony when a witness is sworn in, as the Judges tend to take a lot of notice of the manner in which the oath is given by witnesses. This forms the basis of their credibility. This credibility factor is not mentioned in the newspaper article. So we have a Judge and Jury, a Mr Healy as the Crown Prosecutor, apparently no defence counsel, and the defendant did not give evidence. Indeed the law in those days may have prevented him from giving evidence. It was the case in England for a long time that a defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf in a court. We have a defendant whose name is not mentioned in the proceedings but referred to variously as "the prisoner", "grandfather" and "my husband". Identity is the first point of proof in any court case. But we assume safely that William Randall on bail, is the defendant and although the witnesses do not refer to him by name, they do not say that the person before the court is NOT William Randall. So identity is established. We have a witness Jane RYAN who is the grandchild of the victim and the defendant, and the defendant's son-in-law James Gibson, and a professional witness - the police officer Julian Madden. Mrs Gibson is mentioned as attending the scene of the assault yet she was not called to give evidence. There are no independent witnesses. The charge or presentment against Randall was "Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" to which he pleaded "Not Guilty". Witness Elizabeth RANDALL, "the victim". She appears to give her evidence in answer to questions, rather than directly from her memory, as there are too many sentences beginning with the personal pronoun "I". The defendant has a history of drunkenness and violence, which his wife knows, and yet she sends for rum for them both to drink. It is not given in evidence as to who got the rum. She says "my husband was stupid from drink that evening; he was swearing, and I told him to stop, he said he would not; I told him if he did not stop I would hit him with a brick....." Now Elizabeth knows what he is like when under the influence of alcohol, but she sends for the rum. William became "stupid from drink and he was swearing". She tells him to stop or she will hithim with a brick. So the first mention of violence came from his wife. This is not alluded to again in the proceedings, but apparently overlooked. She threatens her husband with violence with a weapon. He was not being violent, but drunk and swearing. It is not given in evidence as to what he was saying, did he threaten anyone with violence? It is not given in evidence. She is not asked if she did in fact have a brick in her possession at the time, or even if there was one quickly available to her. The floor is mentioned as being made of brick. Were they cemented into the floor or just lying loose? It is not given in evidence. Why did she say she would hit him with a brick? An unusual response for a woman in such circumstances, unless she has had to resort to such a weapon on previous occasions to defend herself against him, or unless she herself is a woman disposed to becoming violent and using weapons, and maybe if so, she has been the architect of the assaults upon her on previous occasions, and he has had to defend himself against her attacks. None of this is examined in evidence. If she has been the architect of assaults upon her by her husband, then why would she do this? Modern Victimology has established that there are people on our planet who have had an unbringing the moral tone of which necessitates that they be punished for "sins", and if the punishment is not forthcoming they will create situations whereby they suffer violence as punishment against themselves. There are women, who will physically mutilate themselves, then allege that a certain man tried to rape her, or did in fact rape her, as a form of vengeance against the man for not showing any interest in them. I have met such women in the course of police work. We have had women enter police stations and dob their husbands in for crimes they have committed merely to get them out of the way so that can have a long affair with the husband's mate(s), and vice versa. Human Beings can be strange and perverted creatures. From her evidence alone, it seems that she set him up so that he could be arrested and got "out of the way". But she does say that she didn't wish to prosecute, no wife does". How sweet of her. Isn't she a wonderful suffering woman? The spirit of Christian forgiveness. A nice touch - for the jury's benefit of course. Witness Jane RYAN, defendant's grand-daughter Although her evidence is fairly pragmatic, she does not say nor is she asked, what the argument between her grandparents was about. She does not give her own age, and does not mention any alcohol being drunk. She does not give evidence of what the grandmother Elizabeth Randall said to provoke the fight. The next witness James Gibson refers to Jane Ryan as a little girl. She states the assault took place when William threw a boot at Elizabeth, then he hit Elizabeth with his hand, a closed fist. Elizabeth in her evidence does not mention anything to do with a boot. Witness James GIBSON, defendant's son-in-law He gives good evidence, but he is talking about a gun. So we have moved from a brick with an open hand, to a boot with a closed fist, to a gun with a broken stock. Each sudden leap is known as a hiatus. This is not good. These three methods of assault must be brought together in a chain of circumstances showing how the defendant and victim moved from one to the other in a causal chain. Neither the Judge nor the Crown Prosecutor try to establish this. The circumstances of the finding of the gun are gone into fairly well but it is not proven that William assaulted Elizabeth with it. She may have fallen upon it. Elizabeth does not mention the gun, and neither is she asked about it. She had been sitting near the fireplace where the gun was kept at the time of the assault. It is not given in evidence, how she actually fell and where she actually fell. It is too vague, and the Judge allows it to remain so. Police Witness - Constable Julian MADDEN All the evidence he gives is what he found, said and did AFTER the assault. He makes no attempt whatsoever to investigate the circumstances leading up to it. Sub-Inspector Brauman merely corroborates MADDEN and has no further evidence to offer. In short, MADDEN arrests and charges Randall based on the appearance of things, without full and proper investigation, and it is accepted by the Court? OPINION Had I been the attending police officer, I would have investigated this properly and I would not have charged William Randall with any offence, but left the matter for them to take civil action if they so wished. From the evidence given, the assault by Randall could well have been construed by the Court as self-defence because he had been threatened with violence by his own wife right from the beginning. It is at the most, if there had been more evidence, an assault WITHOUT intent. Provoked and "set up" by Elizabeth, brought to fruition by William, in a domestic situation of drunkenness brought about by Elizabeth getting the rum. She knew exactly what she was up to from the beginning. With "wounding", there has to be intent. In Victoria, there are two kinds of "assault causing grievous bodily harm", one with intent and one without intent. There is in Victoria the charge of "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" which does not require the proving of intent. Whether such a charge existed in NSW in 1879 I don't know. There are leaps and gaps in the evidence. The two coppers should have been disciplined and put back on the beat in Sydney. The Judge does not instruct the Jury properly. He could have said to the Jury, "If you find that the assault when occasioned, was done so without intent, then you must return a verdict of "Not guilty"". But he twists it around and the jury meekly agree with him. Had Randall appealed, the appeals court would have rapped the Judge over the knuckles, upheld the appeal and directed a re-trial. William Randall has no previous convictions for violence. He has one prior conviction for a theft 9 years previously. This is a non-violent crime. Why has his reputed violence been allowed to continue until he is 65 years old? Why weren't the witnesses asked about his violent reputation? At 65 years of age, he is sentenced to 2 years hard labour. The Judge should have been flogged and sent to Van Diemen's land in chains. (Rhonda, see if you can get a proper transcript of the trial from the NSW Supreme Court website.) Not only should William Randall have not been charged with any criminal offence, William Randall should have been found "Not guilty". Mel Grieveson Mentone Victoria 16th June 2003. [email protected]

Good work. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Newell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Juror no 2. Regina v RANDALL 1879 > OVERVIEW OF THE CASE "REGINA versus RANDALL 1879". > > You don't mention which court heard this case or it's location. As the article refers at the end to "His Honour" and "jury" then it was not a magisterial court, but what we call, the Victoria County Court or the Victoria Supreme Court. The name of the Judge is not mentioned either. > > We must first take into account the person who transcribed the proceedings, and as it is a newspaper article, it may have been the journalist who wrote the article. He may have been either a University educated journalist or the "ambulance chaser" type with a lesser education. > He or she may have properly or improperly transcribed the proceedings with an eye to "good copy". > > The transcriber has not differentiated between the evidence which was given by the witnesses without any prompting, the evidence which was given in answer to questions when "being led" by the prosecutor, and the evidence given in answer to cross-examination by any defence counsel or the Judge. > > Without such differentiation, confusion may arise in the reader's mind and cloud any proper objective assessment of the case. > > The case arose from what the police refer to as a "domestic". Such situations tend to be very bad and the outcomes tend to be tragic. Many people have been killed in such situations including police officers. Courts nowadays tread very warily over such ground due to the high emotional content which brings about tragedy, and what is first considered by any court is the weight of evidence and secondly the credibility of the victim(s) and witnesses. Credibility plays the biggest part and this is noticeable at the beginning of any testimony when a witness is sworn in, as the Judges tend to take a lot of notice of the manner in which the oath is given by witnesses. This forms the basis of their credibility. This credibility factor is not mentioned in the newspaper article. > > So we have a Judge and Jury, a Mr Healy as the Crown Prosecutor, apparently no defence counsel, and the defendant did not give evidence. Indeed the law in those days may have prevented him from giving evidence. It was the case in England for a long time that a defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf in a court. > > We have a defendant whose name is not mentioned in the proceedings but referred to variously as "the prisoner", "grandfather" and "my husband". Identity is the first point of proof in any court case. But we assume safely that William Randall on bail, is the defendant and although the witnesses do not refer to him by name, they do not say that the person before the court is NOT William Randall. So identity is established. > > We have a witness Jane RYAN who is the grandchild of the victim and the defendant, and the defendant's son-in-law James Gibson, and a professional witness - the police officer Julian Madden. Mrs Gibson is mentioned as attending the scene of the assault yet she was not called to give evidence. There are no independent witnesses. > > The charge or presentment against Randall was "Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" to which he pleaded "Not Guilty". > > > Witness Elizabeth RANDALL, "the victim". > > She appears to give her evidence in answer to questions, rather than directly from her memory, as there are too many sentences beginning with the personal pronoun "I". > > The defendant has a history of drunkenness and violence, which his wife knows, and yet she sends for rum for them both to drink. It is not given in evidence as to who got the rum. > > She says "my husband was stupid from drink that evening; he was swearing, and I told him to stop, he said he would not; I told him if he did not stop I would hit him with a brick....." > > Now Elizabeth knows what he is like when under the influence of alcohol, but she sends for the rum. > > William became "stupid from drink and he was swearing". She tells him to stop or she will hithim with a brick. So the first mention of violence came from his wife. This is not alluded to again in the proceedings, but apparently overlooked. She threatens her husband with violence with a weapon. He was not being violent, but drunk and swearing. It is not given in evidence as to what he was saying, did he threaten anyone with violence? It is not given in evidence. > > She is not asked if she did in fact have a brick in her possession at the time, or even if there was one quickly available to her. The floor is mentioned as being made of brick. Were they cemented into the floor or just lying loose? It is not given in evidence. > > Why did she say she would hit him with a brick? An unusual response for a woman in such circumstances, unless she has had to resort to such a weapon on previous occasions to defend herself against him, or unless she herself is a woman disposed to becoming violent and using weapons, and maybe if so, she has been the architect of the assaults upon her on previous occasions, and he has had to defend himself against her attacks. None of this is examined in evidence. > > If she has been the architect of assaults upon her by her husband, then why would she do this? Modern Victimology has established that there are people on our planet who have had an unbringing the moral tone of which necessitates that they be punished for "sins", and if the punishment is not forthcoming they will create situations whereby they suffer violence as punishment against themselves. There are women, who will physically mutilate themselves, then allege that a certain man tried to rape her, or did in fact rape her, as a form of vengeance against the man for not showing any interest in them. I have met such women in the course of police work. We have had women enter police stations and dob their husbands in for crimes they have committed merely to get them out of the way so that can have a long affair with the husband's mate(s), and vice versa. Human Beings can be strange and perverted creatures. > > >From her evidence alone, it seems that she set him up so that he could be arrested and got "out of the way". But she does say that she didn't wish to prosecute, no wife does". How sweet of her. Isn't she a wonderful suffering woman? The spirit of Christian forgiveness. A nice touch - for the jury's benefit of course. > > > Witness Jane RYAN, defendant's grand-daughter > > > Although her evidence is fairly pragmatic, she does not say nor is she asked, what the argument between her grandparents was about. She does not give her own age, and does not mention any alcohol being drunk. She does not give evidence of what the grandmother Elizabeth Randall said to provoke the fight. The next witness James Gibson refers to Jane Ryan as a little girl. She states the assault took place when William threw a boot at Elizabeth, then he hit Elizabeth with his hand, a closed fist. Elizabeth in her evidence does not mention anything to do with a boot. > > Witness James GIBSON, defendant's son-in-law > > He gives good evidence, but he is talking about a gun. So we have moved from a brick with an open hand, to a boot with a closed fist, to a gun with a broken stock. Each sudden leap is known as a hiatus. This is not good. These three methods of assault must be brought together in a chain of circumstances showing how the defendant and victim moved from one to the other in a causal chain. Neither the Judge nor the Crown Prosecutor try to establish this. The circumstances of the finding of the gun are gone into fairly well but it is not proven that William assaulted Elizabeth with it. She may have fallen upon it. Elizabeth does not mention the gun, and neither is she asked about it. She had been sitting near the fireplace where the gun was kept at the time of the assault. It is not given in evidence, how she actually fell and where she actually fell. It is too vague, and the Judge allows it to remain so. > > Police Witness - Constable Julian MADDEN > > All the evidence he gives is what he found, said and did AFTER the assault. He makes no attempt whatsoever to investigate the circumstances leading up to it. Sub-Inspector Brauman merely corroborates MADDEN and has no further evidence to offer. In short, MADDEN arrests and charges Randall based on the appearance of things, without full and proper investigation, and it is accepted by the Court? > > > > > OPINION > > Had I been the attending police officer, I would have investigated this properly and I would not > have charged William Randall with any offence, but left the matter for them to take civil action if they so wished. > > >From the evidence given, the assault by Randall could well have been construed by the Court > as self-defence because he had been threatened with violence by his own wife right from the beginning. > > It is at the most, if there had been more evidence, an assault WITHOUT intent. Provoked and "set up" by Elizabeth, brought to fruition by William, in a domestic situation of drunkenness brought about by Elizabeth getting the rum. She knew exactly what she was up to from the beginning. > > With "wounding", there has to be intent. In Victoria, there are two kinds of "assault causing grievous bodily harm", one with intent and one without intent. There is in Victoria the charge of "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" which does not require the proving of intent. Whether such a charge existed in NSW in 1879 I don't know. > > There are leaps and gaps in the evidence. The two coppers should have been disciplined and put back on the beat in Sydney. The Judge does not instruct the Jury properly. He could have said to the Jury, "If you find that the assault when occasioned, was done so without intent, then you must return a verdict of "Not guilty"". But he twists it around and the jury meekly agree with him. Had Randall appealed, the appeals court would have rapped the Judge over the knuckles, upheld the appeal and directed a re-trial. > > William Randall has no previous convictions for violence. He has one prior conviction for a theft 9 years previously. This is a non-violent crime. Why has his reputed violence been allowed to continue until he is 65 years old? Why weren't the witnesses asked about his violent reputation? At 65 years of age, he is sentenced to 2 years hard labour. > > The Judge should have been flogged and sent to Van Diemen's land in chains. (Rhonda, see if you can get a proper transcript of the trial from the NSW Supreme Court website.) > > Not only should William Randall have not been charged with any criminal offence, William Randall should have been found "Not guilty". > > > Mel Grieveson > Mentone > Victoria > > 16th June 2003. [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Look you lot I'm gunna present some facts and opinions cause I reckn he's guilty. Fact1 My gr gr grandfather, son of two convicts died not too far from Binalong. - a days ride.The doctor said he'd suffered about a fortnight; the illness - a heavy fit of drinking. 2. A son of the above is listed in a book re Aus bushrangers as having some time in Goulburn for his activities. Was he a glorious Aussie bushranger or did he committ an armed holdup of a shop and residence? 3.A nephew of gr gr grandfather was convicted of mistreating his bosses horse near Binalong and also holidayed in gaol. (He killed the said horse I think). 4. Australian born Brother in law of gr gr grandfather and also a son of two convicts was caught for cattle stealing at Berrima and sent to Port Arthur for 14 years. This was normally reserved for 2nd offenders I believe but I haven't located a first offence yet. Never let facts stand in the way of some opinion however as I reckn I've lived around our little town long enough to know the policeman and the jurors, to say nuthin about that drunken irish bum who wz always beltn his missus.If she'd only listened to me 30 years ago we'd ha bean married and shed not hav had to put up wiv im. I tried to give im a job clearin a bit of land but he ws never sober enough to finish it and as soon as he ad a bit ov money he drank the bleedn lot.Is poor kids ad no shoes and offen no tucker. We all new wot e wz like and we ope he'll git wot e deserves in gaol. O course he it er with the gun. E'd git some rum under is belt and belt the livin .... tripe out of man or beast Good riddance to im i say. David in Wyoming on the Central Coast of NSW PS I , in all seriousness came to a guilty verdict on what I read. I didn't have the benefit of any legal argument to help me. My life's experiences colour my judgement. I can't argue legalities. I've taught too many kids from disrupted homes and seen the fear in the eyes, a fear of crying to show weakness or I'll hit you again mentality.If I lived in a small community i.e. Binalong and knew the people in that community and saw a case come to court then my opinion would be coloured by what I knew of the people involved. If the local policeman was someone I knew from sport or whatever and he brought this to trial then I'd be inclined to believe him , that is if I didn't follow in the family footsteps of the time and worship the demon drink and guns and mistreating man and beast. Enough from me, I need a drink before I kick the dog out an git ta bed.