Jury finds gang member guilty of manslaughter

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33873, 19 June 1975, Page 3

Jury finds gang member guilty of manslaughter

After Mr Justice Roper told a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday that if the decision were his he would find the accused guilty of manslaughter. the jury found Nigel Wayne Kerr, aged 24, a tyre retreader, guilty on a charge of the manslaughter of Gregory Slack, aged 18, on December 24.

Kerr was remanded in custody to July 1 for sentence. Kerr was charged with; murdering Mr Slack. The jury found him not guilty on) that charge, but guilty of] manslaughter. It took an] hour and a quarter to reach its verdict. Evidence was given during] the trial that Kerr, a mem-, ber of the Epitaph Riders] motor-cycle gang, had fatally stabbed Mr Slack, a] member of the Devil’s! Henchmen gang, with a home-made sheath knife in Fitzgerald Avenue on Christ-) mas Eve because of a dispute over a stolen gang; patch. ’Sole issue* Messrs N. W. Williamson! and G. K. Panckhurst ap-i peared for the Crown, and] Messrs B. McClelland and S.j P. Graham for Kerr, who) pleaded not guilty to the' charge of murder. Mr Panckhurst. addressing! the jury for the Crown, said) it had not heen challenged] by the defence that Kerr had! caused Mr Slack’s death by] an unlawful act. The sole issue to be decided was one, of intent. Kerr was the aggressor in] the incident; he sought retri-] bution because of what had happened between the two] gangs previously. He was ] armed with a knife which

penetrated Mr Slack's stom-l ach to almost the full- length 1 of the blade. Kerr had made) no attempt to inquire for the 1 whereabouts of Mr Stone. He must have known conflict was inevitable.! Others in the group fled and Mr Slack was either too, slow or he was made of' sterner stuff than the others and stood his ground. ’ This was a deliberate and) vicious attack on Mr Slack,! not an involuntary act as; Kerr claimed. According to his statement he had acted] out of stubborness. He saw these men across the other side of the road and he was the one who was not going to back away,” Mr Panckhurst said. The Crown had proved the] necessary intention and the) only verdict open to the' jury was one of murder,' said Mr Panckhurst. In his final address to the! jury, Mr McClelland said it > did not matter ‘‘two straws”) whether Kerr or Mr Slack! was the aggressor in the in-l cident. The main point for the jury to decide* was Kerr’s intention when he struck out with the knife. Counsel's ease Counsel asked the jury to reject the evidence of Michael Gerard Murphy as unreliable. It must be remembered that there was no love lost between the two gangs. It had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the members of the group, including Devil’s Henchmen, were not armed when they confronted Kerr and David Thomson in Fitzgerald Avenue. Intention Because of, the way the trial had developed the jury would not be able to find Kerr not guilty of everything. Members must be left in a reasonable doubt as to, Kerr's intention at the time] he struck Mr Slack with the] knife so the verdict should) be one of manslaughter. The Crown had failed to i prove beyond reasonable! doubt that when Kerr com-1

mitted the act he intended to. cause bodily injury. or] whether he knew that it was] likely to cause death but was i reckless whether death occurred or not. Kerr had thought that the mere showing of the knife would be sufficient to put members of the group to flight and in those few fleeting seconds he had no time to consider the result of his action, said counsel. After the incident Kerr had shown a degree of responsibility by speaking to his father and giving himself up to the police. The question of intent was) crucial—the jury must- be) left in reasonable doubt andi its verdict should be one of) manslaughter, Mr McClel-' land said. Gang behaviour In his summing up, his ! Honour sgid that a good inumber of matters in the lease were not in dispute. “Your difficulty here is that you have to assess the (Situation in which Mr Slack died—a situation which has I no logical or common-sense (base and the circumstances! [of which are so far removed* (from normal behaviour that’ they must appear almost in-

.comprehensible to norma! 1 people," his Honour said. However, the jury, in com- i [ing to its verdict, should not [be influenced by any feelings [ about the futile and infantile behaviour of the gangs! which they had ireard so] much about. The newspapers) were full of their antics and) the public must be heartily! sick of their anti-social conduct. ‘Sharp conflict’ The jury should not be swayed by those considera-j tions. Members should adopt! ia calm and dispassionate approach to their deliberations. [lt was not the gangs which (were on trial, but one young iman Kerr. They should not ’approach their task with sympathy or ill will. “You must give this young man the same con- ■ sideration and fair trial! which you yourself would! want if you were in this unfortunate situation. This is the most serious charge which can be brought in our Courts and the case must be decided solely on the evidence presented here.” his Honour said. I There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to (whether the members of the group who got out of the car were armed with bottles or other weapons. There was animosity between the gangs because of previous incidents. The real issue in the case was what was Kerr’s intention when he struck Mr Slack. There was no dispute that the injury from which Mr Slack died was inflicted by Kerr. It was clear that the verdict of not guilty ot clear acquittal was not open. No doubt His Honour said that he intended to express a view of his .own on the facts but if the jury did not agree it was bound to reject it. “I think that if I had to decide this case I might be left in a reasonable doubt whether this was murder, but I would have no doubt that it was certainly manslaughter,” said his Honour.