Rifle without bolt was ‘useless weapon’ — S.M.

Press, 4 March 1978, Page 4

Rifle without bolt was ‘useless weapon’ — S.M.

A charge against a youth who armed himself because he said he feared an attack from “raiders,” was dismissed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Kerry Brian Jackson, aged 18, had pleaded not guilty to a charge of carrying a .22 rifle for lawful, proper, or sufficient purpose on December 24.

The Magistrate (Mr F. G. Paterson, S.M.) was told that Jackson was at a party in Worcester Street. During the evening, the police were called to evict some uninvited people. A small group remained.

Anthony Robert Sloper said that a policeman had mentioned that one of those told to leave had shot a policeman. Later a youth, who was evicted earlier, returned, and warned those still at the house that there were seven carloads of people outside and told them to “clear out because they were going to do the place over.” At one stage bottles and stones had been thrown through the front window, Sloper said. The defendant left to ring the police and while he was away witness said that he had fired three shots. When Jackson returned he went inside and got a rifle from the bedroom and took it outside.

Soon after the police arrived he and Jackson were taken to the police station and charged, Sloper said. In a statement, the defendant said that after he left to ring the police he heard three shots, said Constable Kevin Neil Boyce. Defendant said he then went inside to get a rifle which had a bolt in it. He took the bolt out and put it on the shelf in the bedroom.

Constable Boyce told the Court that when he saw the rifle later, it had a bolt and there was live ammunition on the bed. Sloper said he could not remember if the rifle had a bolt in it or not. There was no real conflict of facts, said counsel (Mr A. D. Holland). However he asked the Magistrate to dismiss the information on the

grounds that the weapon was not a rifle at the time of the incident. The legislators had not done very well in defining what a rifle was, he said. Counsel said that the defendant had possession of the weapon for a lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose in exceptional circumstances.

The Magistrate said that he agreed with the challenge of the defence. He accepted that the rifle was without a bolt at the time of the incident and that in effect the defendant was holding a useless weapon, he said. It was nothing more than a club, or was being used to give the impression of being a firearm. The defendant seemed to have taken the lawful steps in that he had rendered the firearm useless and had no time to put it in working order. Since it was not possible to restore it to usefulness on that occasion it could not be called a firearm, and to find the charge proven there I must be a firearm to start with, he said. The Magistrate said he realised Mr Holland would have liked him to deal with the second aspect of defence which involved stating that in those circumstances the carrying of a rifle was lawful.

“I am not prepared to go as far as that,” he said. He then dismissed the charge but declined to make an order granting costs to the defendant. REBUKE ON PROCEDURE There was a tendency for the police rather than Court staff to run the courts, said a lawyer, complaining about the late starting time in a Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr A. D. Holland told the ‘Magistrate that proceedings, | set down to start at 10 a.m„ ’had not got under way until 10.23 a.m. When he had j asked the clerk the reason i for the delay, he was told that the court was waiting for a police witness. Sergeant K. J. Hurndell said that the constable in charge Of a case had undertaken to be at court at 10 a.m. but had been held up. Since that particular case was the only one likely to proceed that morning, he had informed court staff that he was waiting for the constable.

He was concerned that the Magistrate would arrive at the court and then have to return to chambers because of the delay, Sergeant Hurndell said.

The Magistrate said that he had been waiting in chambers for the clerk to escort him to the N 0.2 courtroom. “I can’t hover round the court door,” he said.

Delays should be with the consent of both counsel and the prosecutor. On this occasion the matter seemed to have got a little out of balance, he said. (Before Mr B. A. Palmer, S.M.) HIGH-SPEED CHASE

Speeds of up to 85km through city streets by a man in a stolen car being chased by the police led to the appearance of Kevin Brian Humm, aged 19, on five charges. The defendant pleaded

guilty to charges of wilful; damage, unlawfully taking a car, driving while not the; holder of a driver’s licence, failing to stop when called on to da so, and causing bodily injury. Sergeant R. H. Prouting said that on February 23, when the offences were; committed, the defendant had stolen a car from a sales yard after finding it unlocked and with the keys ;still in the car. He then drbve it to his former girlfriend’s home. There an argument developed and the defendant threw a stone through one of the windows. When she called the police, the defendant took off, said Sergeant Prouting. Then followed a chase through city streets at speeds of up to 85km/h. In Madras Street the defendant failed to stop when signalled to do so by a uniformed constable. In the same street he crashed the car into the rear I of another which came to; rest 30 yards from the point ■of impact. The woman ; driver required 14 stitches lin her face and both cars were extensively damaged. In explanation the defendant said he took the car only to visit his former girlfriend. He also admitted that he had never held a driver’s licence.

The Magistrate convicted Humm and remanded him on bail to March 10 fur a probation report and sentence.

ASSAULT CHARGE On a charge of assaulting Mark Sadler on February 23, a workman, aged 26, was convicted and remanded in custody to March 10 for sentence.

Jacob Pryce, who pleaded guilty to the charge, said he was provoked by the complainant, who, he said, had made a racist remark to him. The result was that Pryce hit the complainant in the face giving him a bloodied nose, chipped teeth, and a swollen lip.

The assault occurred at 10.25 p.m. as the complainant was cycling home along Victoria Street, said Sergeant Prouting. The defendant had called out that he wanted to borrow the bike for a ride into Cathedral Square. When the complainant refused the defendant was seen to go out into the road and grab the cycle. It was then that he hit the complainant in th' face. Counsel (Mr T. M. Abbott), said he had been instructed to say that the assault was provoked by the' complainant’s racist remarks to his client — a Western Samoan. :

The Magistrate then asked if it was possible to have the complainant appear to clear up whether or not there had been some provocation for the assault.

Later the complainant gave eivdence that at no stage had he made any racist comments. “I was attempting to be as nice as possible and avoid any. trouble,” said Mr Sadler. He said the defendant's blow came as a surprise as there had been nothing in his manner to suggest Pryce was about to strike him. “It was the biggest punch I’ve ever run into,” he said. The Magistrate said he

had no hesitation in concluding that Mr Sadler's evidence had been truthful and reliable, and said he was satisfied beyond any doubt that the accused had hit Mr Sadler without any provocation. He rejected completely the defendant’s evidence. He said the defendant had I told a “tissue of lies” in an attempt to give credence to his contention that he had assaulted the complainant because he had been provoked.