Charles FRANCIS AM RFD QC interview 4/11/2003

Did you ever have instances where you felt a client was lying to you?

Yes you do have (such clients), but all you can do is represent them on the story they tell you.

But there was an incident, where I believe a client sort of changed his mind. You were pleading insanity, I believe on behalf of the client and he decided he wasn’t (insane) after all.

Yes, that case was quite a notable case. The name of the client was Harry Sheriff and Harry Sheriff had a long history of psychiatric problems. He’d been hospitalised for his psychiatric problems, he’d attempted to commit suicide on a number of occasions, he had numerous scars on his wrists, he’d cut himself and he hadn’t been long out of a psychiatric institution and the doctor who released him put him on Valium and he said to him, “Harry, when you’re on Valium, you can’t drink” and he got an undertaking from Harry for what it was worth, that he wouldn’t drink because Valium enhances the effect of alcohol and he had a chronic alcohol problem.

Unfortunately shortly after, he was released, he started drinking again and drinking heavily. He went to what was an Alcoholics party and the party continued for a fortnight. During the course of the party, one of the alcoholics was slumped across the table, very pale, and then somebody said “Bill doesn’t look too good” and on examination, they found that he was dead.

He was simply carried away from the party and the party continued. Fairly late in the party, they were running out of money and Harry volunteered to go and get some money. He knew that a roommate in the boarding house where he was had some money, and he killed him with an axe and then came back with the money that was spent on liquor.

Well, at the trial, we pleaded insanity; we were before Mr Justice Anderson. There was no dispute, he’d killed a man, but that was our sole plea - that he was insane at the time. Well, the case was going well from our point of view, and suddenly from the back of the court, where Harry was, Harry announced that he wanted to change his plea to guilty.

I contended that he couldn’t do that because I was in charge of the case and it was for me to decide whether or not he would be permitted to change his plea. Harry then said from the dock, that he wasn’t insane, that I was a nice man, but he fooled me to believe he was insane. He said he was quite sane and that he killed the other man because he was a mongrel and a dog. Well, the judge at this stage thought he ought to be permitted to change his plea, over my protests.

I can imagine you’re weren’t too pleased….

No. Then Harry said he wanted to go into the witness box and give evidence and I objected to that also. I said, I was in charge of the case, and I would decide who would be called to give evidence but the Judge overruled me on that and Harry went into the witness box and he told the same story, that I was a kind and nice man, but not very bright and that he’d fooled me into believing that he was insane, and that he wanted to plead guilty.

The judge said, “What have you got to say to that?” and I then said that he couldn’t be permitted to change his plea, unless the jury decided he was sane and the judge agreed with that and he sent the jury out. The jury came back not very long after with a finding that he was insane; so he was not convicted but (there was) a finding of insanity against him.

Conducted for the Bar Oral History project by Juliette Brodsky in the Neil McPhee Room, Owen Dixon Chambers and filmed by Stewart Carter (People Pictures)