Threat brings fine

Press, 31 March 1983, Page 9

Threat brings fine

Fines totalling $6OO were imposed in the District Court yesterday on a man who, Judge Pain said, had a history of offending over the last 10 years, punctuated by incidents relating to his consumption of alcohol. The defendant, Murray Paul Haines, aged 29, a plasterer, was appearing for sentence on charges of threatening to kill his wife, Gail Michelle Haines, and driving while disqualified, on October 3 last year. He was fined $350 on the threat to kill charge and was placed on probation for 18 months, with a special condition that he undertake examination, counselling, or treatment for alcoholism or other problems, as directed by the probation officer. On the disqualified driving charge he was fined $250. No extension of his disqualification was imposed. The defendant had been found guilty by a jury early this month of the threat to kill offence. It was his second trial on this charge as a jury at his first trial had failed to agree on a verdict. He had pleaded guilty at a separate appearance in the District Court to the disqualified driving offence which was committed when he drove a car to his wife’s place of work, and threatened her. Crown evidence at the

trial had been that the defendant drove to the city restaurant where his wife worked, on the afternoon of October 3. After calling out to see his wife, and speaking to her at the door, he was heard by another employee to say he would get a gun and blow her head off. He came to the locked door of the restaurant soon afterwards carrying a gun. Police were called and found the defendant sitting in his car, with a shotgun with a live cartride in the breech, on the floor. The defendant told police he had returned to the city after rabbit shooting and called on his wife as he wanted to know where his daughter was. The defendant denied threatening his wife, or carrying the gun to the door, and said he had taken it from the car to check that its safety catch was on, as he had had a cartridge misfire and a jammed cartridge in the breech while rabbit shooting that day. The defendant told police that he had been annoyed and angry at finding that his daughter was not at home. Dr W. G. G. A. Young submitted yesterday .in mitigation of penalty for the defendant that the presence of the gun was “most unfortunately fortuitous” for the defendant. Notwithstanding the altercation between them

the defendant intended to leave the car parked at the restaurant for his wife and had checked the gun to ensure its safety. The firearm had been in the car for rabbit shooting and there was nothing to indicate he: intended to use it to carry out his threat. Dr Young said that the defendant had many good features and the marriage, although stormy, was durable. He was a hard and diligent worker in his own business, was a good provider, and except in relation to his drinking, a good husband. Mr D. J. L. Saunders, for the Crown, made no submissions. The Judge said that the evidence was capable of interpretation that the defendant did not intend to carry out the threat. He did not attempt to re-enter the restaurant after taking the gun from the car. However, his actions were a cause for real alarm, and took on a more sinister complexion in view of his past history which showed a propensity for violent conAlcohol was clearly the defendant’s problem, but the concern was that he would not recognise it In imposing sentence the Judge said he took into account the defendant’s circumstances, and the expenses he had had of an additional trial.