Davis Found Guilty Of Manslaughter

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31775, 4 September 1968, Page 26

Davis Found Guilty Of Manslaughter

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, September 3. After a retirement of five hours and a half, a jury in the Supreme Court at Auckland tonight found Rodney Francis Davis, aged 20, guilty of the manslaughter of Gregory Phillip Sharpies.

The jury also found Davis guilty of receiving part of a quantity of drugs, the property of S. H. Beresford, Ltd, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained, and guilty of administering the narcotics morphine, pethidine, and cocaine to Sharpies.

He was found not guilty of three charges—breaking and entering S. H. Beresford, Ltd, on June 22, administering a narcotic to Michael Joseph Ryan on June 22, and between June 22 and July 11 having narcotics in his possession for the purpose of supplying another person.

The Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) remanded him in custody to Friday for sentence.

Davis was represented by Mr L. W. Brown. Mr D. S. Morris appeared for the Crown.

Warwick Waynp Smeeton, senior anaesthetist at Auckland Hospital, said that if vigorous resuscitative measures had been used on Sharpies within a short time of his taking the drugs, he would have had every chance of a full recovery. EVIDENCE OF DOSAGE

Dr Royce William Farrelly, pathologist at Auckland Hospital, said he estimated Sharpies had taken at least 30 milligrams of morphine, 300 of pethidine and 20 of cocaine before his admission to hospital on June 23. Dr Farrelly said death had been recorded from smaller doses of these drugs than Sharpies had had. He said he based his estimates on quantities of the drugs found in urine samples taken from Sharpies.

Dr Desmond John Andrew Doyle, a pathologist, said he carried out a post-mortem examination on Sharpies on June 28. The cause of death was irreversible brain damage consistent with the effects of loss of oxygen to the brain from severe depression of the respiratory sys. tem. This depression was consistent with the effect of an overdose of narcotic drugs. There were 21 puncture marks on Sharpies’s arms, but some of these could have been made at the hospital for the purpose of taking blood.

The only witness for the defence, Lachlan James McQueen, a maintenance officer and driver, said he had worked on a property, where the accused lived with his mother, on two successive Saturdays in June and July, after Davis was arrested. He had looked closely at two places where the police said yesterday they had found drugs, while he was pruning a tree and cutting the lawns. He saw no sign of either bag and was sure he would have noticed them if they had been concealed. CROWN CASE

In his final address, Mr Morris said it was clear that S. H. Beresford, Ltd, the chemist’s shop at Howick, had been burgled between the Saturday morning and Sunday morning. The drugs identified by Mr Beresford were

found by the police in the brown satchel. They were seen in the satchel by Ryan in the shack about midnight. He said there were three persons in the shack using drugs—Davis, Ryan, and Sharpies. Evidence from other witnesses showed that neither Ryan nor Sharpies could have committed the burglary. It was for the jury to decide if Davis’s claim that he went to a film was a coverup for going to Howick for much-needed supplies of drugs.

Of the manslaughter charge, Mr Morris said that by his own statement Davis was a prime mover in Sharpies’s taking drugs. Even if he stood by and encouraged Sharpies in the act he was a party to it. If the drugs made a substantial contribution to the death of Sharpies then Davis was responsible. “NO CLEAR PICTURE” Mr Brown, in his final address, said the Crown must prove not only that an unlawful act caused the death of Sharpies but also that it was the accused’s unlawful act. He submitted that the police case was riddled with uncertainty. From about 2 a.m. for 19 hours until Sharpies was taken away by the ambulance, there could not be a clear picture of what took place at the shack. Mr Brown asked how it could be certain Sharpies had not had further injections. How could it be said that a later injection was not the cause of death?

He said an ambulance driver gave evidence that Sharpies had one rather fresh puncture mark in his arm with blood on it, which smeared when he rubbed it. SUMMING UP

In his summing up, his Honour, discussing the theft of the narcotics from the chemist's shop, said the Crown must satisfy the jury about the identity of the burglar. In this case there was no direct evidence of identity. It was a matter of inference. His Honour said that on the manslaughter charge an unlawful act was any act prohibited by an act of Parliament. In 1965 it passed the Narcotics Act, which said that no person should administer any narcotic to any other person and that no person should use any narcotic. In the Crimes Act a person was equally guilty of a crime if he aided or abetted any one in the commission of an offence. The Crown said Davis did the unlawful act, first by administering or by being a party to Sharpies using a narcotic by aiding or abetting him.

He said Ryan could be called an accomplice and associate—for he was undoubtedly associated with these events.

He said it was unwise to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of Ryan alone, but it was competent for the jury to do so. The jury had to decide what other evidence corroborated his story. “IMPORTANT CASE”

His Honour said it was an important case for the accused. It was also an important case for the community. The jury was called on to deal with the case on an important part of the law which was recently passed to protect the health of the community and its citizens.