Judge discharges man in airport bomb case

Press, 9 February 1983, Page 4

Judge discharges man in airport bomb case

Shortly after the opening pf the defence case late yesterday afternoon in the High Court. John Robert Davison, aged 34. a shop assistant, was discharged by .Mr Justice Holland.

Davison pleaded not guilty to a charge of wilfully damaging the Christchurch Airport building with an explosive on Julv 25. 1981.

The discharge under section 347 of the Crimes Act is the equivalent of an acquittal.

Mr G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown. Davison was represented by Mr P. G. S. Penlington. Q.C.. and Miss I. M. Mitchell. The Crown's case was that Davison constructed a bomb by filling a short length of galvanised pipe with powder and shot from shotgun cartridges. sealed both ends and inserted a fuse. The device was put in a biscuit tin contained in two plastic bags.

The bomb was placed in a cubicle on the day the Springboks were due to play Waikato at Hamilton.

Davison was only a short distance away in the washbasin area when the bomb exploded. That evening he appeared on television. Detective Senior Sergeant John Victor Dwight said that he was a member of a police squad which executed a search warrant on Davison's home in Kaiapoi. He spoke to Davison who was in an agitated state. Davison made several telephone calls including one to his solicitor. Davison said that while he was in the cubicle with his young daughter he saw a white plastic bag on the ledge. He was curious so he opened it and saw a plastic bag with the trade name. Polaris, on it. Inside that bag was a blue plastic tin which he picked up and shook. Something rattled or rolled inside it. Because he thought it was someone’s lunch tin he had put it back. Davison had told him. Mr Dwight said. While his daughter had her hands in the blow dryer in the washbasin area the blast

went off. To Mr Penlington Mr Dwight said that there were six policemen in the party which arrived with the search warrant. Also present was an explosives detector police dog. Davison was adamant that there was no smoke coming from the biscuit tin when he handled it and throughout the interview he denied committing the offence, Mr Dwight said.

When opening the defence case Mr Penlington said that there was no dispute that the bomb had gone off in the men's toilets, but it was the defence that it was not Davison who made it or set it off. It was a case where the police and the Crown had jumped to conclusions. There was some suspicion but that was not enough. Speculation was no substitute for proof bevond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had put together a most flimsy case which was just not good enough. The Crown case was based purely on circumstantial evidence.

The defence was that there was a real possibility that the bomb had been set off by a two-phase fuse and that would let Davison out. It was claimed by the Crown that Davison could not have handled the bomb and not seen smoke.

If a two-phase fuse was used there would have been no smoke in the early stages and the person responsible could have been miles away by the time Davison took his daughter to the toilet. The defence said that it was a real possibility for Davison to have handled the device and seen no smoke and that it went off a short time later. Davison had no motive to set off the bomb. He had no connection with any anti-tour group and was very fond of his children.

When the jury had heard the evidence of the expert called by the defence it would come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed and that Davison should be acquitted. Mr Penlington said.