Davis Found Guilty Of Killing Banham

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30364, 13 February 1964, Page 12

Davis Found Guilty Of Killing Banham

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, February 12.

Maurice Albert Davis, aged 30, a motormechanic, of Christchurch, was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court at Wellington tonight on a charge of murdering Peter Carthew Banham, a taxi-driver, at Hope, on February 20, 1963.

The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) sentenced Davis to life imprisonment. The jury retired at 5.17 p.m. and returned their verdict at 8.45 p.m.

Davis remained impassive when the verdict was given. Asked whether he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not be passed, he did not reply. His. Honour excused the jurors from further service for three years.

Summing up, his Honour said it seemed open for a jury to take the view that it was virtually impossible for a man named MacDonald, who had confessed to the murder of Banham, to have murdered him and got back to work at Wellington on the morning after his death.

Mr R. C. Savage, who prosecuted, in his final address, said it had been an unusual murder trial in that there were no alternative defences. such as accident or provocation, which could reduce the charge to manslaughter.

The only issue was “guilty” or “not guilty.” Many of the fadts did not appear to be in dispute. Because of the course of the trial the jury had not heard what defences were put forward. There were four matters which? might be canvassed by the defence, the first of which was the burden of proof.

The defence might well say the Crown had not satisfied the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Davis was the man who committed the murder, that all the evidence was circumstantial, and there was no direct evidence. “Obviously if there was any direct evidence, we would not have spent the last eight or nine days exploring the evidence. we have. There is no magic about the term ‘circumstantial evidence.’ ■ It merely means there are put before you a series of facts or circumstances. And these facts and circumstances all point to one conclusion, and the only reasonable inference to draw 7 from that conclusion is the accused’s guilt.” Davis’s Fitness Mr Savage said the second defence that' might be put forward was that a medical Witness had said he would have expected Banham’s assailant to have been marked. There was evidence that Banham had had practically no room to move in the front seat of that taxi. He must have resisted his assailant, but it could be asked whether he could do “very much in a very limited space.” It might be suggested that a fight occurred outside the taxi, but there was evidence only of a struggle in the taxi. What chance would a man in the front seat have of causing injury to his assailant?

Dealing with a possible defence assertion that Davis had a weak right hand and that he was left-handed and had a weak back, Mr Savage said .it was clear from the evidence that Davis was a competent mechanic. To carry on a garage business, a competent mechanic ‘had to be reasonably strong in both hands.

He submitted that if Davis had had any injury which could have affected his capacity to commit the alleged murder, the defence would have called medical evidence to show what the injuries were. Claim' From Dock A statement made by Davis from the dock, said Mr Savage, was unsworn and not open to cross-examination. The jury might think the statement showed there was an acceptance by. Davis that much of what he had said in his statement to the police was lies. “First, the accused tells the story of what he did on the day after the murder. When the Crown shows, by evidence, that this was clearly untrue, that he was on the way back to Christchurch, what next do we have? —An attempted false alibi. When that crumbles, as it must have been apparent that it had at the time of the Lower Court hearing, what do we get but a statement from the dock which introduces a third alibi-—the. stranger from Sydney." . Police Inquiries Opening his final address for the defence; Mr J. G. Leggat said that whatever suspicions might have been raised by the evidence, suspicion was never a substitute for proof. In the case there were, at the worst, some things that were suspicious and no more. There was nd evidence at all which would warrant the jury concluding that Davis was the murderer. Though the inquiries made by the police indicated a painstaking approach to their task. 80 per cent of the witnesses did not take the Crown’s case one step forward.

Several of the conclusions the jury might draw from circumstances in the case did not confirm the Crown’s case, but tended to show that the person involved was not Davis.

The Crown had relied on the fact that Davis had left Christchurch on February 18 on a hunting expedition which took him through Marlborough and Blenheim and to Nelson and the Clark Valley. Question Of Motive

The Crown had said there was an opportunity for Davis

to be at Hope on the night of the murder. It was alleged that the motive was money, and that the murder had resulted from what had commenced as robbery— a robbery allegedly “sparked off” by Davis’s shortage of money. Suggesting that it was questionable whether a taxidriver would be expected to carry even £5O, Mr Leggat said it could be asked if £5O would be the salvation of Davis’s business difficulties. Davis had known that a Mrs Mellish was prepared to back him financially. “He had far more certain sources of all the money he needed to discharge all his debts in his business than taking a gamble and proceeding to commit a very serious crime.” “Absurd Story” Referring to the evidence of the witness Sheridan, Mr Leggat submitted .that the police had sought Sheridan’s assistance because they knew that “unless they got something more” they could not lay a charge against Davis. Describing Sheridan as a “stool pigeon” and “con man,” Mr Leggat said that on Sheridan’s, own admission he had been in trouble .with the law 69’ times. Sheridan had spent the whole of his life being dishonest. The story he had told in Court was, if analysed, intrinsically absurd Banham had been a big, strong man. It should not be suggested that he had been knocked out and “after that it was just a matter of dealing with him in the assailant’s own time.” A pathologist had ■ testified that blows on the back of Banham’s head were not serious. Blows on the front of Banham’s head were struck when he and his assailant were/ face-to-face.

“Is not this a case where a taxi-driver was overpowered by a gang of two or three?” ■ asked Mr Leggat. “How do you get a bar bent across the back seat of the taxi with one man—a squirt like Davis?” Direction To Jury His Honour said that when Davis had made an unsworn statement from the dock it might have seemed that an attack was being made on the police in the sense that they were proceeding against an innocent man when they knew another man had confessed to the murder.

The effect of subsequent Crown evidence appeared to be that the -confession was made known to the defence in August. His Honour suggested the position was that counsel for both the defence and the prosecution had been fully aware of the contents of the alleged confession. Neither had thought it proper to put the document before the Court. He thought the jury could accept that they were acting for good reasons. His Honour said the effect of Crown evidence brought to answer Davis’s statement from the dock was that the man’ MacDonald who confessed to Ban ham's murder was. on February 20 and 21, working in Wellington. It seemed open to the jury to take’ the view that it was virtually impossible for MacDonald to have murdered Banham and got back to work on the morning of February

“If you take that view,” he said, “You might be justified in saying that there is nothing in this confession which can exculpate the accused, nothing that calls for reconsidering it any further.” (Evidence, Page 14)