Hensley Acquitted Of Murder

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30822, 6 August 1965, Page 3

Hensley Acquitted Of Murder

(N.Z. Press Association) AUCKLAND, Aug. 5. After a retirement of four hours a jury in the Supreme Court at Auckland today found Bruce Allan Hensley not guilty of a charge of murder. Hensley, aged 22, a cabinet-maker, had pleaded not guilty to the charge of murdering Edward Burns Bryson, aged 44, chief steward in the Kaitawa, on June 8. Summing up, Mr Justice Moller said the jury should consider circumstances leading up to death when taking into account the number and force of blows delivered. The defence had pointed

out that Bryson was the bigge~ and stronger—a man of perverted sexual tendencies—and Hensley already had reason to know of his brutality. It was a dark, lonely spot, Bryson had threatened indecent assault and threatened to kill him. The jury was advised to consider this defence evidence when taking into account the number and force of kicks which the Crown alleged Hensley gave Bryson. If jurors came to the decision that it was not too much force under the circumstances, then they should give Hensley the benefit of the self-protection statutes. “If you find Hensley acted in self-defence or you have doubts about it, then this is a complete answer to the charge,” he said. “In those circumstances, you would have to find Hensley not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter.”

Had the Crown proved that Hensley meant to cause really serious injury? his Honour asked. He advised that it was murder if Hensley meant to cause death, meant to cause bodily injury he knew to be likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death ensued. “Looking at the evidence, are you really able to find that the Crown has conveyed the certainty that Hensley meant to kill Bryson and accomplished just what he meant to do?” Could jurors even say in the alternative that the Crown had conveyed the certainty that he meant to kill or cause Bryson injury he knew, was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued or not? Evidence had been brought to show that Hensley had been drinking, but drunkenness in itself was no defence, although it took a place in

the jury’s consideration of the matter of intent. If the jury found there was provocation it would, if it had Otherwise found Hensley guilty of murder, reduce the charge to manslaughter. Should the jury find that Bryson’s death was accidental, the Crown’s case had failed. Had the jury doubts about the accidental asphyxia from inhaling blood, did it consider, in effect, that Hensley had killed Bryson indirectly? The jury retired at noon. At 3.10 p.m. they returned to ask a question regarding selfdefence, and his Honour redirected them on this at length. The jury retired again at 3.40 p.m. and returned 20 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. Mr P. B. Temm and Mr E. J. Wright appeared for Hensley, and Mr G. D. Speight and Mr C. M. Nicholson represented the Crown.