R v Overell - [2012] SADC 52

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v OVERELL
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 52
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Rice
20 April 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ARSON AND LIKE OFFENCES
Trial by Judge without a jury - accused charged with two counts of arson - accused's answer to the first charge was that he was not responsible for it and that it was part of a vendetta against him by a person or persons unknown - as to the second charge, the accused acknowledged that his conduct occasioned a fire, but said it was caused accidentally.
Verdicts: guilty on each count.

R v OVERELL
[2012] SADC 52
Introduction

This is a trial by a Judge sitting without a jury. The accused is charged with two counts of arson which are said to have occurred at his home on 22 May 2010 and 30 May 2010. There is no doubt that the accused’s home at Balhannah was damaged by fire on each occasion. There is no doubt that the accused was inside his home when each fire started. When family and firefighters attended at each fire, the accused was the only person inside the house.
The prosecution case is that the accused deliberately or recklessly lit each fire whilst he was inside the home alone.
The accused gave evidence that the first fire (Count 1) was lit by a person or persons unknown whilst he was inside the house. As for the second fire (Count 2), the accused said he was home alone and accidentally lit the fire himself.
As can be seen, the primary issues in each count are quite different. The first fire was (seemingly) deliberately lit and the main issue concerns the identity of the perpetrator(s). The second fire was acknowledged by the accused to have been lit by him but he says that was purely accidental and that there was no deliberate or reckless causing of a fire by him.
Obviously these counts need to be considered on their individual merits. The verdicts may be the same or different depending upon my factual findings.
Defence case – further issues
As mentioned, the accused gave evidence concerning each fire. Although there is clearly no obligation upon an accused to show or prove anything, part of the defence case has been to suggest (relative to Count 1 only) that his home has been the target of revenge fires since his son’s birthday party at the house on 17 April 2010. In other words, the perpetrator(s) of the earlier suggested revenge fires were also responsible for deliberately lighting the fire relative to Count 1. It will be necessary to consider these earlier fires in view of the approach taken to Count 1.
Legal principles to be applied
Without going into unnecessary detail, I note the presumption of innocence and the need for the prosecution to satisfy me of guilt on each count beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need or obligation on the accused to show or prove anything. Any deficiency in the evidence is to be sheeted home to the prosecution, not to the accused. The verdicts may be the same or different. Each count needs to be assessed on its individual merits.
This is a case based substantially on circumstantial evidence. The defence has suggested, although there is no need for the accused to prove or show this, that Count 1 was part of a series of deliberately lit fires whereby he or his home were the target of a vendetta or revenge arson attacks by unknown offender(s). For me to convict on Count 1, I would have to reject the possibility that this was a revenge attack and reject it beyond reasonable doubt. Even if I did so reject that, I would still have to be satisfied that the accused deliberately or recklessly damaged the house by fire. At the end of a consideration of all of the evidence, not only would I need to be satisfied that the accused’s guilt was a rational conclusion, but that it was the only rational conclusion open on the evidence.
I have considered the counts quite separately. I have not used any of the evidence relevant to Count 2 on Count 1 and I have not used the evidence on Count 1 for the purposes of Count 2.
I note the accused gave evidence when he was not obliged to do so. I give him credit for adopting a course he was not obliged to take. Even if I disbelieve the accused and reject his evidence, that does not lead to a conclusion of guilt. In any event, I must assess whether the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on each count. I have regard to the accused’s good character in assessing his account and whether he is the sort of person who might commit these charged offences.
I have not used any of the earlier fires or events in aid of the prosecution. They are, however, highly relevant to the defence case. Even if it is a reasonable possibility that the accused and his home were the targets of a vendetta, I still need to consider the strength of the evidence on the counts themselves.
Chronology
It is convenient at this stage to give a chronology of all the fires plus what was referred to as a chemical spill. The defence case that the accused and his home were the target of revenge or random attacks stems from Tyler Overell’s (the accused’s youngest son) 16th birthday party held at the house. I commence with that party because the evidence does not suggest any relevant earlier event. There is able to be precision with these dates because one of the prosecution witnesses, Ms Yvonne Cain, a next door neighbour of the accused, kept a diary.
The various events occurred as follows:
1.17 April 2010 was Tyler Overell’s 16th birthday party at 7 Nairne Road, Balhannah, the accused’s home. A large number of young people attended, some invited, some not. Some of the uninvited people who turned up were forcibly ejected or turned away. There was some fighting. The police attended. Rocks were thrown on the house after the party finished. The following morning it was noticed that a green Toyota Corolla parked in the driveway had sustained minor fire damage to one of its rear tyres.
2.On 19 April 2010 there was the chemical spill at the house. The chemical was a type of plant spray or pesticide used by the accused in the front garden. He had left it at the front of the house after its earlier use by him. The chemical had been poured on a window sill and wall at the front of the house. There was only the accused home at the time of the spill. Another son, Brayden, earlier left the accused at the house while he went to Oakbank. He noticed the spill when he returned half an hour later. Brayden alerted the accused (his father) and they left the house. The police and the fire brigade were called. Decontamination of the area was necessary.
3.On 24 April 2010 at 10.40 p.m. the neighbour, Ms Cain, noticed the green car (which had been slightly damaged on the night of 17 April) was ablaze on the nature strip in front of the accused’s house. The accused’s sons and the girlfriend of Brayden, Sarah Ritchie, were in the lounge room when alerted to the fire. Brayden said his father was asleep in bed at the time.
4.On 30 April 2010 a Holden Berlina, which was parked in the carport adjacent to one end of the house, was twice damaged by fire. The accused alerted his son Brayden and a visitor to noises outside. They found motor bike straps were alight on top of the left-hand side rear wheel. They heard a V8 motor in the near vicinity. Brayden and the visitor left to see if that car could be seen or located. The accused stayed behind to look after Sarah Ritchie. When Brayden and the visitor returned, they discovered the back left-hand wheel had material burning underneath it. The items used in these fires were pulled from near the wheel and the police were called.
5.In the early evening on 1 May 2010 the Holden Berlina was destroyed by a fire which was deliberately started in one or two Sulo rubbish bins that were positioned close to the car. The accused was the only person at home at the time of the fire. This was a substantial fire destroying the car, badly damaging the carport and nearby structures, and damaging the nearest room of the house, the accused’s bedroom.
For reasons to which I will come, the accused did not reside in the house after this event. Neither did his son Brayden (who had been there most of the time) nor his son Tyler (who spent much of his time at his mother’s place at Oakbank in any event).
6.On 22 May 2010 there was the major house fire. This fire is the subject of Count 1. Much of the house was destroyed by fire and it was certainly uninhabitable after that time. This fire is referred to in detail below. It is important to note that the accused was the only person home when this fire was started in one or a number of places inside the house.
7.On 30 May 2010 there was another fire inside the house, this time in the rear lounge room. The accused was resting/sleeping on one or two bean bags. He acknowledges starting the fire in the sense that he fell asleep, possibly when smoking a cigarette, and the bean bags and their contents caught alight. He denies deliberately or recklessly starting this fire.
Count 1 – fire on 22 May 2010
I return to a consideration of the fires that form the basis for each count, commencing with Count 1. In so doing, I do not overlook the earlier fires and events.
After the fire that destroyed the car and carport on 1 May 2010, the accused was admitted to Glenside Hospital. He had been under the psychiatric care of his general practitioner for depression since about 2000 (T747). Following that fire, the accused described himself as a “blithering mess” and asked to be admitted to Glenside Hospital because he had been there in the past and it seemed to help (T779).
In addition to psychiatric matters, and probably allied to them, the accused had a significant alcohol problem. This was supposed to be under control when he left Glenside Hospital, but the accused was drinking on both the 22nd and 30th of May occasions.
Between 1 May and 22 May, the accused spent some time in Glenside Hospital and otherwise lived with his parents at Crafers. Between those dates he returned to his home at 7 Nairne Road, Balhannah on only the one occasion when he was accompanied by family members. He was not there long on that occasion and did nothing to the house. It was not occupied by anyone after 1 May. Brayden and Tyler lived elsewhere. Also, the power had been cut off. Importantly, in the three weeks when the house was unoccupied, it was not the target of any arson events or vandalism.
On 22 May, the accused was picked up from his parents’ place, probably by his son Brayden, and taken to 7 Nairne Road about mid-morning. The accused’s parents were due to pick him up at about 5.00 p.m. The accused was planning to start cleaning up after the fire of 1 May. There were still chickens there and also the accused was a keen gardener.
The house belonged to the accused although it was mortgaged to the National Australia Bank. The house and contents were insured with Allianz. Having said that, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest these fires were lit so as to be able to claim on the insurance.
It is also clear from the evidence that the accused was very house-proud and had done much to improve it both inside and outside. Since his separation from his partner (the mother of Brayden and Tyler) some years earlier, he had done his best to provide a house and home for his sons when they stayed.
Quite apart from the accused’s other problems, at about the time of Tyler’s party his former partner had met someone else. As a result of that, the accused felt “a bit gutted” (T745). Also about that time, the accused had a panic anxiety attack while driving a truck in the course of his employment. The accused stayed voluntarily at the Royal Adelaide Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. He did not return to work and it was suggested he take time off (T744-749).
Returning to the events on 22 May, the accused started the job of cleaning up the mess and damage following the carport fire. He was able to salvage some of the curtains and curtain rings from the main bedroom. The fire in the adjacent carport had been quite substantial and caused some damage through a window in the main bedroom. The accused said a curtain and some curtain rings were placed on the dining room table adjacent to the kitchen. He also said there were some folded clothes and some papers on the table, including insurance papers (relevant to a claim for the carport fire).
In the early afternoon, the accused was visited by a woman, Zell Dodd, who had also been at Glenside Hospital. They had met a few weeks earlier and became friends. She stayed for a few hours and said (in her statement that went in by agreement) that, for most of the time, the accused was acting quite normally. However, within the twenty minutes before she left, she said the accused was acting strangely, losing his balance, looked dizzy, slurred his speech and his talk made no sense. She left between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. via the front door. Although she could not say whether the front door was locked after she left, later evidence showed it to have been locked when the accused’s parents were attempting to gain entrance.
Apart from Ms Dodd’s attendance there, the accused was in the house alone. As mentioned, she says she left between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. The accused said that, after she left, he had a sleep on the lounge somewhere between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. (T794). I find that the fires started at some stage after Ms Dodd left.
Mr and Mrs Overell Senior arrived at the accused’s home, as arranged, at about 4.55 p.m. Mr Overell said that, upon arrival, he could hear the smoke detector alarm and could see flames coming through bedroom three window (Tyler’s bedroom) (T31). There is no doubt on the evidence that Tyler’s bedroom was the seat of the main fire on this day. As I discuss below, the prosecution say this was the major seat of three fires, whereas the defence say this was the only fire seat and fire spread to the other two areas in the dining/eating area adjacent to the kitchen.
Returning to the timetable and observations, Mr Overell said he had to break in through a window because the front door was locked. He said there was a fire on the dining room table about twelve inches high. He said the house was completely filled with thick smoke with five to six feet visibility (T32, 37).
Mrs Overell said that she also could hear the smoke detector, saw flames on the table in the dining room and flames coming out of bedroom three into the dining room. She said the house had very dark smoke down to chest level (T162).
A next door neighbour, Ms Y. Cain (who maintained the diary), thought that it was around 4.30 p.m. that she was outside and noticed smoke coming from the roof of the accused’s house. By the time she and her husband went to the front of the accused’s house, his parents were dragging the accused out.
The next door neighbour on the other side, Ms R. Westdorp, said that during the afternoon she went outside and saw a lot of smoke coming from the house (T123), exiting under the eaves (T136) and also pouring out of the back of the house (T135). She ran to the front of the accused’s house to see if she could assist. She called out “Stewart, are you okay?” She received the response “Everything’s fine” from the accused’s father (T124-125, 129, 134). There was a lot of smoke (T126).
Upon returning to her own house, Ms Westdorp looked out of her kitchen window and saw flames inside bedroom three. She rang “000” and then used her garden hose to spray a large tree close to her boundary with the accused’s house. The accused’s house was only about one and a half metres from her boundary. From her position outside she was still able to see the flames inside bedroom three. Then she applied water to the window itself, the glass of the window, and then she saw flames pouring out of the window going everywhere. Importantly from her evidence, the flames she saw were confined to the inside of bedroom three until the window shattered (T127-128, 136-138).
Mr and Mrs Overell Senior located the accused in the back lounge room. He walked towards Mrs Overell through the dense smoke and they both took him out the front where he was attended to by the ambulance officers.
I also note some evidence from Mr and Mrs Overell Senior that, after they forced their way into the house, Mr Overell used a hose in an endeavour to douse the flames which were burning material on top of the table in the dining/eating area. In doing that, the pressure of water pushed some of that burning material on to the floor. This is relevant to whether the burning of material on the floor was a separate fire seat.
Causes and progression of the fire
There is no doubt that bedroom three was the main fire seat. This is borne out by the expert evidence from Sergeant Walton and the photographs. One of the questions is whether there was one or were two additional fire seats in the dining/eating area, one on the table and a separate one on the floor.
Two points can be dealt with shortly. There is no evidence that an accelerant was used. Secondly, the power was not connected at the time so any fire was not caused by an electrical fault.
Ms Dodd left between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. based on her evidence and that of the accused.
Observations by neighbours and Mr and Mrs Overell Senior indicate that the fire in bedroom three had been going for some time such that there was a substantial amount of smoke inside and outside the house by 4.55 p.m. (when the Overells arrived). When Ms Westdorp made the observations of bedroom three from her kitchen (before using the hose and the window shattering), she described the flames, then confined inside the bedroom, as “ferocious” (T136).
Assuming Ms Dodd left as early as 3.00 p.m., all of the fire activity occurred before 4.55 p.m., that is, one hour fifty-five minutes. Assuming Ms Dodd left as late as 4.00 p.m., all of the fire activity occurred in fifty-five minutes with the accused being the only person present in the house after she left. What is clear from a survey of the evidence is that there was a slow developing and spreading fire that had its seat in bedroom three. A lot happened before 4.55 p.m. in any event.
In making observations about the fire and making findings, I am conscious of the fact that there was some fire activity after the accused was removed and before the CFS put it out. Furniture may have been moved and further damage occasioned to the window of bedroom three.
Ms Westdorp’s evidence, in combination with the evidence of Sergeant Walton and the photographs (plus evidence we took on the second view), leads me to conclude that the window to bedroom three was closed at the time the fire started. The flames and heat only escaped via the window once it shattered, possibly aided by it being hosed by Ms Westdorp. Because the house was said to be the target, the accused was strict about security, locking doors and windows. The high likelihood is that the window was locked, particularly having regard to the fact that the house was also unoccupied. It was certainly closed. That is supported by the evidence of Mr Neil Daniel from the CFS (T701).
Before the window shattered, a large amount of heat was generated in that room. Furniture was burnt, a small refrigerator melted and the upper-middle aluminium frame of the window melted (although some of that after the window shattered). The fire appears to have started on the bed in that room. As mentioned, the house had been unoccupied for weeks. The fire spread to the ceiling timbers above the room and radiated out to the timbers of the dining/eating area where the table was located.

The door from the bedroom to the dining/eating area appears to have been open (although I cannot say how much) for much of the time of the fire. Fire spread into an area close to the front door that is adjacent to the dining/eating area. That spread was in the upper areas of the door frame, an adjacent door (into another bedroom) and an ornamental, glass-framed, divider at ceiling level (it came down about 30 centimetres).
I reject the suggestion that the fire spread from bedroom three onto the dining table and ignited clothing on it. There are a number of reasons for that rejection. The potential means of spreading is by convection, radiant heat, direct flame or drop-down from burning areas above.
First, I find the table was not sufficiently close for that to have occurred. If it was moved by Mr Overell, that was not by very much. Allied to that, there are two further points. Some of the paper on the side of the table closest to the door to bedroom three did not ignite and burn. Further, the edge of the table closest to the door sustained only minor damage.
Secondly, there is no sufficient area above the table from where burning material could drop down onto the table and/or any clothes or furnishings that were on it.
Thirdly, there were other combustible items in the dining/eating area closer than the table (and anything placed on it), which did not burn.
I find that the fire on the table was a second seat of fire. I find that the fires in bedroom three and on the dining table were each deliberately lit. I have no reason to doubt that portion of the evidence of Mr and Mrs Overell Senior that, in using the hose, some of the burning material on the table was pushed onto the floor and continued to burn. On that basis, I find there are two fire seats, bedroom three and the dining table. The fact that one area of burning was much greater than the other may mean they were lit at different times or that the different materials ignited at different temperatures and/or burned at different rates.
The question then becomes whether I am satisfied the accused was the person who lit the fires. Without wanting it to be thought that I have reversed the onus of proof, is there a reasonable possibility that an unknown person or persons gained entry and set the fires?
In making an assessment about that, it must be remembered that the house was unoccupied for three weeks and no damage of any type was caused in that time. If the house itself was the target of attacks then there was abundant opportunity to do so while it was vacant. I note that previous damage was to cars and the carport plus the chemical spill.
If the accused himself was the target (or the accused plus the house), then the offender(s) had to know the accused was present. His car was not in the driveway as he had been dropped off. In fact, he had surrendered his licence or it was cancelled because of physical and/or psychiatric problems (T871). Perhaps he had been seen outside during the day. Perhaps the real offender saw him or notified the real offender.
On this basis, the real offender(s) planned an attack on the house with the accused inside. That person or persons must have approached the house in daylight not knowing where the accused was or what view he had of such an approach. Because of the earlier events, the neighbours, on the evidence, were quite vigilant and no-one saw any strangers lurking at this time. The real offender(s) must have entered the house (via a door or window) without the accused knowing. The real offender must have remained inside to set the fires and then left, all without being seen or heard. (There was no power so there was no television or similar equipment on.) I have not overlooked the fact that the house was not completely secure from intruders. I have not overlooked the suggestion that entry was made via Tyler’s bedroom window. There is no evidence of any forced entry anywhere.
The statement from Ms Dodd says that she arrived between about 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. She left between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. On her statement and the evidence of the accused, they were moving about the house. There is no evidence either saw or heard anything or anyone unusual in the time she was there. The only thing strange was the accused’s behaviour towards the end of her visit.
On this basis, the real offender(s) had little time to act. The real offender(s) were not to know when Ms Dodd would leave or what the accused was going to do once she had left. The accused could have been anywhere in the house at any time or anywhere outside the house. The accused says he went to the lounge area and fell asleep (T794) but the real offender(s) were not to know that would be the case.
The accused says that he went into a deep sleep. He says that he often had what he referred to as a “nanna nap” in the mid to late afternoon. He says on this occasion he fell asleep because of a combination of the medication he was on and the couple of beers he had throughout the day (T794). He said the smoke did not wake him, rather it was his mother screaming out to him. He said there was smoke and his mother and father took him outside.
I reject the suggestion that this fire was lit by a person or persons unknown. I find that the accused lit the fire in bedroom three and the dining/eating area. I would have reached the same conclusion had the fire in bedroom three been the only fire. I make it plain that I reject the evidence of the accused on this count. In my view, the conclusion of guilt is not only a rational assessment of the evidence, but it is the only rational assessment open. Also, in making this assessment, I have taken into account the accused’s good character and standing in the community.
In reaching this conclusion I also have not overlooked that there is no obvious reason or motive for him to set fire to his own house. In fact, as noted, he was house-proud and had done much to create a house and home for his sons when they came to visit. However, the evidence is replete with references to the accused’s physical, emotional and psychiatric problems, including many admissions to Glenside Hospital. I do not need to find a motive. The explanation for his conduct may lie in his psychiatric and psychological make‑up.
Count 2 – 30 May
This is the fire referred to as the bean bag fire. The question is whether the accused lit this fire deliberately or recklessly, having acknowledged that his actions in smoking and falling asleep on the bean bags were the cause of the fire. In other words, was the fire lit deliberately or accidentally. The facts surrounding this count are more straightforward.
After spending overnight in hospital following the large fire on 22 May, the accused returned to stay with his parents. Thereafter, he spent everyday or every second day at his home at 7 Nairne Road, Balhannah, cleaning up and providing food and water for the chooks. This is what the accused did on 30 May.
The accused said he lent up against the kitchen table (refer to photographs) and looked towards Tyler’s door, went to the kitchen and got a bottle of Scotch, had a few drinks and went to sleep on two bean bags in the lounge room (T817). It is not without significance that this was the first mention of there being two bean bags. In early detailed evidence about these events, including a description by Brayden of the accused on a bean bag, it was never suggested there was more than one (Brayden Overell T78-83, 107-110).
The accused said he lay across the two bean bags and had the best part of half a bottle of Scotch. He said he was asleep when his son Brayden came to borrow his EFTPOS card for petrol. Later evidence showed petrol to have been bought using that card at 12.16 p.m. on 30 May at Balhannah. Brayden said his father was snoring when he left, about 25 seconds after walking away (T111, 118).
The accused said that, after his son left, he fell asleep (T818). He had lit up a cigarette when Brayden was there (T818, 875-877). He could not remember putting it out or holding it after Brayden left. Usually in that situation he would have put it out in an ashtray or doused it in the sink and put the butt in the rubbish bin in the kitchen (T876). In any event, he said he awoke to find a bean bag alight, but not the one he was on. He said there was quite a bit of flame and black smoke (T818). He said he could not see because of the black smoke. He found his way to the kitchen and, although intending to ring his parents, rang his neighbour, Ms Westdorp (T818). In the circumstances, there was no sufficient reason to ring his parents first; they should not have been his priority.
According to Ms Westdorp, the accused said “Bek, its Stew, the house is on fire, I can’t get out, help me” (T130). Ms Westdorp’s partner, Michael Harman, broke in around the rear of the house adjacent to the fire. The accused was pulled out of the house and taken to the nature strip area of the other next door neighbours, Mr and Mrs Kain. In the presence of Ms Westdorp, the accused said to his parents (who had arrived by this stage) “I just can’t do this any more” or “I can’t do this any more” (T132). It was put to her in cross-examination that what was said was “I can’t take much more of this”. Ms Westdorp denied that those were his words and adhered to her account. She also acknowledged that the accused said those words soon after regaining consciousness. Ms Westdorp’s evidence about the words she heard is equivocal, yet they are nonetheless relevant as a piece of circumstantial evidence.
I turn to the accused’s evidence and cross-examination on this topic. The accused said he was lying across both bean bags and they were situated in the corner of the lounge room where the fire damage occurred. The accused drew his position on the two bags, his drawing showing the two bags overlapped (T863 ff). He had drunk half a bottle of Scotch reasonably quickly and was “a bit upset” and “teary” when looking at Tyler’s room and the damage generally (T873).
He said that when he awakened the flame on the bean bag was “a foot high”. He panicked and rang the neighbours by mistake rather than his parents (T878). Despite his position across the bean bags and the position of the fire (which he also drew), there were no burns to his forearms or hands. His clothes were not on fire (T879). Only one bean bag was alight (T888). The accused had suggested that portion of his shirt was damaged by fire, but then said there really was not any evidence of fire damage (T868). The front of the accused’s shirt is marked and grubby, but it shows no signs of being singed or burnt (see Exhibit P31). It was not claimed any other portion of his clothes was damaged by fire.
The accused said the “fat part of his stomach” (beneath the marked and grubby area of the shirt) sustained a “red and burning” injury. The only treatment the hospital gave him was lanolin cream that he applied twice (T821‑822). There was no blistering or peeling and the skin was not broken (T866).
With the fire only relatively small when he woke up, he said he went to the kitchen to get water, inadvertently rang the neighbours and, remarkably, “panicked”. To my mind it was ridiculous for the accused to assert he panicked at such a small fire, being himself a member of the CFS and experienced in fighting bushfires (T888-890). In addition to that, the assertion to his neighbour that the house was on fire and he could not get out, was patently incorrect.
I also add that the amount of smoke and fire damage as illustrated by the photographs show there was a significant fire in the spot where the accused was laying. It was doused reasonably quickly after the accused was taken from the house (T79-80), thus indicating much more had occurred than a small fire on a bean bag. If, on the other hand, the fire was as small as the accused had suggested, why did he not simply get water from the kitchen nearby and put it out.
I reject the evidence of the accused as to the manner in which the bean bag caught fire. I find that it was deliberately lit by him. The reason for him so doing is, I suspect, to be found in his psychological and psychiatric background.
Conclusions
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused on each count. I record verdicts of “guilty” on each count.