SUPREME COURT Men guilty of ‘brutal robbery’

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34123, 8 April 1976, Page 10

SUPREME COURT Men guilty of ‘brutal robbery’

More than 100 gallons of beer were drunk at a party, described as a "drunken orgy,” which led to the brutal robbery of an old man who lived next door, it was stated in the Supreme Court yesterday. A jury found Thomas 'Goffe, aged 28, and Hugh

Tango, aged 21. both unemployed. guilty of the aggravated robbery of $3OO. a tape recorder, radio, two war medals and a Post Office Saving Bank passbook from Laurence Raymond Hunt on Nov-j ember 16. Mr .Justice Casey remanded both accused in custody to April 14 for sentence. At the trial, which began on; Monday. Mr P. G. S. Periling-; Hton appeared for the Crown,

Mr P M. Janies for Goffe' and Mr A. W. Robinson for Tango. Both accused pleaded not guilty. The defence called no evidence. When opening his case Mr Penlington said that evidence would be given that two men burst into the home of Mr Hunt on a Sunday morning, threw him to the floor and he was kicked in the head and beaten up. Mr Penlington said in his

final address that this was a i savage and brutal attack by! two Maoris on a defenceless i old man in his home in Pine-; wood Avenue on a Sunday morning. The evidence showed beyond doubt that Goffe and Tango Gere responsible. In his address to the jury Mr James said that there was not the clear and concise case against Goffe that the Crown would have members of the jury believe. It was Goffe's defence that he was not in the house at the time of the robbery and that he had been framed bv others. Goffe was the drunken ■ fool found lying in the garage only a few yards from the scene of the robbery. Goffe's alternative defence that even if it wgp found that he had committed the robbery then he was so drunk that he could not be held to be responsible for his actions. All the Crown's witnesses, who attended the party, were besotted by liquor and some I of them had been on a 24hour binge and they could be covering up for the persons' who had done the robbery-. When Goffe was found in a drunken sleep by the police only 30ft from the scene of the robbery he did not have a cent on him. Mr Hunt had said that he was attacked by two Maoris but he had never mentioned that one was short, which was Goffe's most outstanding feature. The jury had to consider that both accused had been “framed’' by others at the. party. The least valuablearticles taken from Mr Hunt 1

were found in Goffe s pockets as he lay in a stupor or the garage floor. It would have been easy for others to have slipped those articles into his pockets. Mr James said. Mr Robinson, in his address to the jury, -aid that there was substantial doubt in the Crown case against Tango. There was no evidence that Tango had taken anything front the house s Tango had not given evidence and he was not oh. liged to as he did not have to prove anything. He said that there was no ca>e against him to answer. Ihe statement made b> Goffe implicating Tango could not be used as evidence against. Tango. It was obvious thar Tango was trying to unload some of the blame. “Alcohol played a big part in this affair which has been referred to as a drunken orgy. I'he mind boggles at the quantity of liquor vvhich was drunk by those who attended the party, some of whom had been drinking fot more than 16 hours. Mt Robinson said. Witnesses for the Crown who had been at the partv were on the fringe of the crime and their evidence hadto be regarded with great suspicion because any one of them could have been involved. "I submit that Tango wasnot involved in the offerne but that if you find that h« was then he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intention tc rob.” said Mr Robinson.