Two men for trial on alleged robbery

Press, 23 June 1981, Page 7

Two men for trial on alleged robbery

Two men in the District Court yesterday, were committed to the High Court for trial on a joint charge of robbing a man of his trousers, underpants, and ¥2l in money in the toilets at Manchester Street car park on or about November 29.

The defendants were Stephen Barry Gordon, aged 23. a barman (Mr M. J. Knowles), and Gary William McQuillan, aged 26, a painter (Mr G. E. Langham). The two elected trial by jury and pleaded not guilty to the charge of robbing Murray James Ward. The case had been adjourned to yesterday for completion after prosecution evidence had been part-heard in December and February. Messrs R. C. Holland and J. H. Christensen. Justices of the Peace, held there was a case to answer to the charge, and committed the two men for trial. McQuillan was remanded on bail to a date to be fixed, and Gordon on bail to July 6, pending the trial. Sergeant G. C. Jones prosecuted.

The complainant, Mr Ward, said in evidence- that he went to the Manchester Street car park toilets after leaving a hotel at 11.30 p.m. on November 28. While he was seated in a cubicle the door was pushed open and a person entered. A second man then appeared and grabbed Mr Ward round

the neck, and began hitting him.

■ The second man then withdrew the belt from Mr Ward’s trousers and put it round Mr Ward's neck and began tightening it. The complainant then reached for his money as he thought that was what they' were after. They took the money and the first man removed his trousers and underpants before the two departed.

Mr Ward said the belt was still loosely round his neck. He put his coat round his lower body and went out on to the street to summon help. He received facial injuries and was treated at hospital.

Mr Ward said he remembered that one assailant wore overalls. He did not recognise anybody in court as being in the toilets that evening.

Another witness gave evidence of knowing the two defendants, who he had seen at a hotel, and seeing them leaving the toilets as he entered. He spoke to them and one said to keep quiet, as they had just done somebody over.

Inside, the witness saw a man with blood on his face and a belt round his neck, and no clothing on the lower part of his body. While he was talking to a police officer outside shortly after, the witness said, he saw Gordon drive past.

Cross-examined, he saiane might have been mistaken that it was McQuillan in the toilets. Yvette Bamford, de facto wife of Gordon, said that Gordon stopped the car and went to the toilets. He was by himself and was only, away about two minutes before returning to the car. She did not see McQuillan. Both defendants, when questioned by police, denied knowledge of any assault or robbery in the toilets.

Both counsel made submissions that the prosecution fell short of establishing a prime facie case against the defendants. Mr Knowles said there was no evidence linking Gordon with a robbery, and no real evidence of a robbery. The complainant could not identify the defendants .in court as his assailants and it was possible he could have been attacked by two persons who then left by a side door.

Mr Langham submitted that McQuillan was on “unshakeable” ground as far as identification was concerned. There was not a shred of evidence linking McQuillan to the offence. The witness who had given evidence of seeing the two leaving was “hazy” in his recollection of some events, and had only seen the men from a distance, and walking away from him.