Enraged puppy owner jailed on manslaughter count

Press, 24 June 1981, Page 5

Enraged puppy owner jailed on manslaughter count

A youth, whose German Shepherd puppy had its throat cut by a flatmate, had been taunted into a blind rage which left a man dead. Mr Justice Hardie Boys said in the High Court yesterday. His Honour sentenced Brent Eric Stuart, aged 17. a construction company labourer, to 21 months imprisonment on a charge of manslaughter. Earlier this month Stuart was charged in the High Court at Dunedin with the murder of John William Thompson, aged 21. unemployed. at a house in Fernhill Street, on March 10. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Evidence was given at the trial that Stuart was living in the house with his brother. Wayne Alister Stuart, aged 21. and a number of other young persons of both sexes, who spent much of their time drinking.

Brent Stuart had a German Shepherd pup. named Duke, which had something wrong with its back legs and was not able to walk properly.

Brent Stuart carried the dog to a veterinarian's room where it was X-rayed and treated.. The animal was found to be suffering from a calcium deficiency and he was given a powder to sprinkle on its food. He took the morning off work to get the dog treated. When He picked the animal up he was told it had been sedated.

John Thompson and Wayne Stuart, who had been drinking. decided that the dog should be “put out of its misery" because of its condition. Mr Thompson had difficulty in cutting its throat because the knife he used was not sharp enough and a second one had to be obtained. They decided to throw the carcase on an empty section across the road, and Mr

Thompson threw it there. A little later Wayne Stuart realised that it was in plain view of the neighbours or anyone walking up the road. He decided to move it so that it would not upset his brother.

An attempt was made to bury it at a girl's place, but the ground was too hard and then it was suggested that it should be thrown in the harbour, but eventually it was taken back to the house where they lived. When Brent Stuart returned home and found that his dog was dead and saw that its throat had been cut he became very angry. He discovered a knife covered in blood in the corner of a bedroom. He smashed a window with his bare fist.

During an argument about the dog's death Mr Thompson put his hand on Brent Stuart's shoulder. A detective said that Brent Stuart had told him: "I just swung around with my right hand that had the knife in it. I felt the knife go into his left side under his ribs. It went in right up to the handle." Brent Stuart then ran up Fernhill Street and called the police from the Oval Tavern.

A girl gave evidence that Brent Stuart told her that his mother had died when he was aged about six. She said that the dog was "a nice little puppy” and it was his personal dog. It was the most important thing in his life and he loved the little dog. the girl said. He told her that after his mother's death he had been on his own a lot. He was very upset by the loss of the dog.

The girl agreed to counsel that Brent Stuart was just a young kid amongst a group of people who were a lot older and more experienced in life than he was. Mr J. B. Robinson, of Dunedin, appeared for Brent Stuart.

His Honour said that the jury had very properly acquitted Stuart on the charge of murder but had found him guilty of manslaughter. Either the jury found he did not intend to seriously harm John Thompson, which was what Stuart had said all along, or it found that he did have that intention but was acting under provocation. He thought that the former was more likelv.

“I recognise that what you did was done in a situation of great stress, anger and frustration. Your attachment to your dbg was not only real but it had an intensity born apparently of the deprivation of deep and lasting human relationships as you grew up.

“There is no doubt that the two who were involved in the death of your dog acted quite inexcusably and that at the end in a stupid drunken state they taunted you into this blind, wild reaction that left one of them dead,” said his Honour.

. He was prepared to accept that Stuart did not have the knife in his hand at the door, for the clear purpose of

harming someone with. it. It was a disaster for Stuart to have been in the house at all. The others were older: most of tjiem were unemployed and spent their dole money on drink. They paired off in the various rooms while Stuart, just turning 17, trailed along with them. "If they all had a bit less to drink and some a little more sense and compassion, this whole tragedy could easily have been avoided," his Honour said.

“Picturing the situation in the house in which you lived and reading the helpful probation officer's report. I have very great sympathy for you. because you were one of the best of them all in that house," his Honour said.

But the whole responsibility could not be passed on to others. Stuart had had too much to drink, too. and instead of controlling himself, had worked himself up into a state of rage and then went to the door with the knife in his hand, even though he might have had no real intention of using it.

He was distressed to learn that Stuart had been before

the Court on a number of occasions and that he was no stranger to alcohol or violent behaviour. Only a few days before this incident Stuart was before the Court on a charge of driving with an excess bloodalcohol ratio. Last October he was charged with carrying an offensive weapon and had been charged with assault on a female. It seemed that Stuart had not learnt the lesson those should have taught him and now, at great cost he hoped that he had.

“One life has been wasted because of what you did and because of what others did, and failed to do and in my mind it would be a double tragedy, if as a result of it. another life was wasted too," his Honour said.

It was heartening to read of the positive responses Stuart had made to his present predicament and he did not want to frustrate them. On the oth.er hand he had a duty to thecommunity and to make it clear that violence, whatever prompted it. was not to be tolerated, said his Honour.