The court Manslaughter ‘proper verdict’

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 14

The court Manslaughter ‘proper verdict’

The defence of provocation has been raised in the trial of Lapana Leo Tauinaai, aged 29, a presser, who has pleaded not guilty; in the Supreme Court to murdering his wife. Eseta tlesele Tauinaai, on January 6. Mr Justice Roper will sum ■ up this morning. Evidence has been given; in the trial which began on; Monday that Tauinaai stabbed his wife to death; when she returned to their i home in Cob Crescent after, an absence of two days, told I him that she was leaving! him, and began packing. “ ‘ Messrs N. W. Williamson and D. J. Fitzgerald appear for the Crown and Messrs K. N. Hampton and N.R.W. Davidson for Tauinaai. Mr Williamson in his final address to the jury said that Tauinaai admitted using the carving knife to cause the injuries which resulted in his wife’s death. Anyone who stabbed a person in

■that manner must have: : meant to cause death. i The defence claimed that it was manslaughter and not .murder because Tauinaai did Lwhat he did under provocation. The Crown said that : there was no evidence of : provocation sufficient to 'cause Tauinaai’s actions. A picture had been ; painted by the defence witjnesses which easily made persons feel sympathy for dTauinaai as a quiet, friendly; i person who loved his wife! .and son. :i Mr Williamson warned I members of the jury against i being swayed by emotion. “Don’t wallow in the mush of emotion but judge the evidence in a calm and dispassionate manner,” he s’aid. : The defence had said that Tauinaai had been in agony for two years because of his marriage but it was necessary to keep a balanced view about it. There had been evidence of a separation for a period. Both

■ Tauinaai and his wife hadi i regularly gone out on their I j own. He was fond of snooiker and darts and she went! [to nightclubs and dances! with single Samoan girls. What happened at the time and what Tauinaai, (knew at the time was imiportant. He had not known; jwhen he killed her that hisj iwife had spent the night in) the staff quarters of the; 'Hornby Trust Hotel. ; He got very angry but she:; (did nothing to provoke him into doing what he did. She;i did not make him mad. She); had not taunted him or told him that she had been out;] with another man, Mr Wil-!' liamson said. i In his final address to the < I jury Mr Hampton said that: on the night Tauinaai killed || his wife he had acted sud- ' denly in the throes of anger. I After being provoked beyond 1 endurance he was no longer ; in control of himself. < The proper verdict was i one of not guilty of murder ] but guilty of manslaughter as the Crown had failed to t prove that the act was noti'r done under provocation. The{< only possible verdict was t one of manslaughter because!! there was a reasonable a doubt as to whether he was is provoked. p There was more than ample evidence of provoca- r tion. Both his wife’s actions j and words were sufficient to r deprive any ordinary man of I his self-control. After being t absent for two days she re- a turned and told him that she s was leaving him. 0

| After years of agony and (desperation in his struggle: ito keep the woman he loved. I the mother of his son, the; (dam behind which his emo-i Itions had built up burst. Normally Tauinaai was a ■ gentle, sincere, honest man) who was not given to violence. He was proud of his iwife and son and had done (everything possible to keep! ■the family together. When his wife told Tauinjaai that she was leaving him that was the ultimate in prov-( location and that ghastly re-: (suit followed. It was a sad story, Mr( iHampton said. A story of a (young woman killed, a young man ruined for life and a child deprived of his parents. ( “This lonely man loved his )family so dearly so all that he worked for and had striven for was dashed to pieces. It was perfectly understand-; able that he had lost control! of himself, as would have most ordinary men,” Mr I Hampton said. The defence did not claim! that this was the ideal mar-) riage but Tauinaai had struggled for two years to keep! the family together. His wife had gone out with other men 1 and was determined to have ! a good time. She did not want 1 her husband to take her out. ; Tauinaai knew on that ' night that his wife had been going out with other men andil mentioned it in his statement. 11 He had had to put up withjl two years of turmoil and i anguish, caring for his young (I son while his wife was “out if on the town.” l<

I; It was not the first time (she had stayed out all night. ,)He was worried about her because he still loved her although he knew she was (being unfaithful to him. That night his wife had struck their young son, making his (nose bleed. In his statement Tauinaai ihad said: “I went out of my mind.” All that he had been holding back swept past him and he was no longer master of his own mind. There (was an explosive release of ; passion. He killed his wife in (front of their young son because he had gone beserk. In a state of frenzy he had stabbed her at least a dozen times. He did not know what he was doing or what was happening around him. After making sure his young son was taken care of (Tauinaai spent three days (without food hiding in bushes inear Hargood Street. He was ifound sitting with his head (bowed like a lost soul. He Istili had the knife by his side, (which was not the'action of the classical murderer. i His actions on the night of his wife’s death were so out of character that they amply showed how much out of control he was because of the intolerable provocation he had been subjected to, ) In his statement Tauinaai |had said: “That’s the worst I thing I have done in all my life. I loved that woman.” The only possible verdict. Mr Hampton said, was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.