A good verdict
The Dom Post reports:
As a packed courtroom erupted at the news that Alan Gundry would walk free after shooting dead one of his best mates in self-defence, the young Auckland father simply sank in the dock and cradled his head in his hands. …
After deliberating for eight hours, a jury unanimously found Mr Gundry not guilty of murder and, by a majority of 11-1, not guilty of manslaughter. His lawyer, Graeme Newell, said there would be no celebration at the rare verdict – just relief.
Is that the first 11-1 verdict? Vindicates the law change I think as no way he would have been found guilty but it avoids a retrial.
Mr Gundry and Mr Atkins were friends for years and had spent January 12 eating and drinking at Mr Gundry’s home.
But during the evening Mr Atkins became upset with his girlfriend. They went home and he threw her belongings out of his house. She then fled to Mr Gundry’s house, and Mr Atkins followed.
Mr Atkins had a violent history, including several assaults on his girlfriend and a road-rage incident, the court was told. When he died, he was awaiting trial charged with slashing a man’s face at an Auckland nightclub.
On the night of the killing, he rampaged through Mr Gundry’s home, attacking five others, leaving another party-goer semi-conscious in a pool of blood and assaulting Mr Gundry’s partner, Nicole MacDonald.
It was right to bring it to trial, but the verdict is absolutely the right one, from the media reports.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
100% The correct verdict, from all reports.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
At least second majority verdict I am aware of. Might be first Not Guilty majority. Never had any issue with a majority NG verdict. A little less convinced the other way. Either way it would have been useful if the result of a “hung” jury was advised as an element for the Crown to consider re. any re trials.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Oh, and there did seem to be a reasonable doubt based on media reports. Which is a bit like judging a bikini contest via radio but opinions are free.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Might save a lot of personal anxiety and the country a lot of money if people chose to mix with others who have some personal standards of reasonable behaviour. Most people don’t have to shoot their guests to get them to behave and go home thank goodness. Birds of a feather fly together etc.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Is that the first 11-1 verdict? ”
No, I don’t think it is. I seem to recall a story about one in Greymouth or Westport soon after the law came into force. A sex trial of some sort, if I recall.
Hung juries weren’t as prevalent as the Law Commission liked to make out, but interesting that this shows at least one person wanted manslaughter. I wonder on what basis? If they rejected self-defence then it was murder. I actually hold the opinion that a number of manslaughter verdicts over the years have not been so much that the jury has found that was the correct charge, but more a compromise in not wanting to convict for murder but not wanting the person to get off completely, either.
“the verdict is absolutely the right one, from the media reports.”
It seems the deceased man’s family disagrees with you there.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“Which is a bit like judging a bikini contest via radio ”
That is absolute gold.
Seems a good description of a jury trial, actually.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
One thing I would query about this – he went and got a rifle and loaded it. Not trying to say it’s an unfair verdict, but from my experience with firearms licenses the police push the point strongly that you shouldn’t try and use a firearm in threatening situations and they get you to commit to not doing that
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
It would be strange if you didn’t find one person in a randomly selected group of 12 who didn’t hold an unshakeable “sanctity of life” view and couldn’t bring themselves to vote Not Guilty regardless of the circumstances. That’s why we are all a bit different each from the other I suppose.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“they get you to commit to not doing that”, not so sure about that Pete. When I last renewed my license the “retired officer” asked me what I would do if someone came into our home uninvited. I asked if he wanted the PC version or the real life version. He said he would be much happier if I gave the PC version, it makes the paperwork look better. Most of the police are realistic and realise an intruder intent on committing a crime in an isolated area is either dead meat or looking at a stint in A&E, it’s just not talked about in polite company. In fact many years ago the local cop went so far as to say make the first shot a good one and fire the second shot in the ground.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Why in the ground SSB?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Which is a bit like judging a bikini contest via radio.”
tremendous GPT, absolutely tremendous – I’m going to steal and use this at some stage…
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“Why in the ground SSB?”
I’m guessing so you could say you fired a warning shot?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I wrote the following on nz.general yesterday:
The judge’s summing up to the jury would have included:
You are asked to consider first what the accused believed the
circumstances to be, from his or her point of view.
The second question is whether, bearing in mind that belief of the
accused about what was happening, he or she was acting in self defence
(again considered from his or her point of view). [note - the judge
may have said ...self defence or the defence of others]
The last question is whether, given that belief, the force used in
self-defence was actually reasonable.
The deceased was drunk and was aggressive against five people and then
tiuned his attention on to Mr Gundry who feared for his life so Mr
Gundry shot the deceased.
First question – what did Mr Gundry believe the circumstances to be -
that he feared for his life and took action in a “moment of crisis”.
Second question – was he acting in self defence (from his viewpoint) -
obviously yes.
Third question – Was force used actually reasonable? I can only read
between the lines if the newspaper reports. It seemed that Mr Gundry
believed that he had to take immediate action to prevent the deceased
causing serious harm to himself or someone else. I would say it was
right on the knife-edge, the deceased was apparently unarmed and
perhaps Mr Gundry could have restrained him with the help of others.
Or Mr Gundry did not have the confidence to deal with it without an
‘equaliser’.
Turning to the Crown Prosecutor. The Crown rejected Gundry’s evidence
that he feared for his life and did not believe he was provoked to an
extent he was incapable of knowing what he was doing. However Mr
Gundry’s belief is everything – it is not a matter whether he could
have or should have believed whatever. This is a major problem for the
prosecution in ‘self defence’ cases – the best they can do is to try
and bullshit the jury.
Actually I would not be too surprised if he brassed some jurors off. I
have been on two juries and in each case the Crown Prosecutor
succeeded in brassing me and possibly other jurors off.
The third question – this is an objective assessment of the
reasonableness of the force used, not the force that the accused
believed to be needed. With respect to this, the gods were on Mr
Gundry’s side today, it would have been touch and go. I would venture
to suggest there could have been a bit of retaliation against the
Crown Prosecutor here.
If the Crown Prosecutor had given Mr Gundry’s beliefs due respect and
concentrated on the alleged unreasonableness of the force used, he may
have scored a conviction.
The deceased’s supporters perhaps should have vented their spleen on
the Prosecutor rather than some hapless press photographers.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
good post peterwn…
and that last point is why some legal experts advocate an “excessive self defense” charge, or defence to murder… which rather than murder vs acquittal (or the jury choosing manslaughter as an interim step even where under the current law it isn’t really appropriate) would mean that if someone was truly acting in self-defense, but went “too far”, they would be culpable and accountable for committing a crime, but not the highest crime in the land…
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Stephen, if someone is coming for you and you decide to shoot make sure the first shot counts, it may be your only chance. The second shot is the warning shot and purely for the benefit of the jury.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Warning shot into the ground is because what goes up must come down. Safer to fire into the ground than the air! (Subject to ricochet I guess).
Thanks KiwiCraig. I was rather pleased with it for a Thursday!
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
This man acted in a crisis situation where most through their own nature and years of being pussy whipped by socialism would be pasive observers and/or victims.
He made a hard choice and acted. I for one will not be second quessing him from the comfort and safety of my PC.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Murray – which is just what the Crown Prosecutor was doing – from the safety and comfort of ‘another day at the office.’
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Possibly one of the many reasons none of my friends are crown prosecutors. Actually the only friends I have that any relation to crowns have them on their regimental badges.
Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheep are afraid of the wolves so they legislate against teeth.