Case Study

Our client was charged with murder after an incident involving a group of five men, including our client, who travelled from West Auckland to a residential address in Helensville. The group believed that a piece of gang clothing associated with an outlaw motorcycle club, had either been stolen or improperly given to the deceased, who was not permitted to wear it. The group had also received information suggesting that the deceased had been wearing the clothing while attempting to intimidate a third party in relation to drugs.

Upon arrival at the address, one of the defendants spoke with the primary occupant who then requested the victim come to the door. The victim was punched in the face and then kicked by our client.  One other defendant joined in the assault. The other three defendants did not participate and attempted to intervene and stop the assault. As a result of the assault, the victim suffered a traumatic brain injury. He was hospitalised and passed away approximately 20 days later.

Our client was arrested and charged with murder. His co-defendants were also arrested and charged in connection with the incident. Due to the seriousness of the allegations and our client’s association with the ‘club’, bail and electronically monitored bail were both declined. Our client remained remanded in custody for just under two years before the trial commenced. A conviction for murder would have resulted in a mandatory life sentence, with a minimum non-parole period of at least 10 years.

This was a complex and demanding trial, both factually and legally. Two key Crown witnesses faced significant credibility issues. Both admitted to substantial methamphetamine use, and the evidence suggested they had a potential motive to shift responsibility away from themselves and onto our client.

From a legal perspective, our client accepted that he was present at the address and that he participated in the assault. However, he did not intend to cause the deceased’s death, nor did he believe death was a probable cause of his actions. This defence meant that our client was likely to, and ultimately did, give evidence at trial.The scale of the case was significant. By the conclusion of the trial, disclosure totalled approximately 50,000 pages, in addition to extensive CCTV footage and intercepted telephone conversations.

Further complexity arose from the position taken by a co-defendant who had also participated in the assault, and whose defence conflicted with our client’s defence throughout the five-week trial. After hearing five weeks of evidence from witnesses including civilians, Police and experts, our client, and two co-defendants, the jury returned a not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter verdict.

This case highlights the importance of careful analysis of intent, causation, and witness reliability in serious criminal trials. Even where a client accepts involvement in an assault, the distinction between murder and manslaughter can be critical. Through a detailed examination of the evidence and a focused trial strategy, a charge carrying a mandatory life sentence was successfully resisted, with an end sentence being six years’ and three months imprisonment.