Guilty verdict over incident at Rangiora

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 12

Guilty verdict over incident at Rangiora

A man who injured a pedestrian by driving his car into a group of people after an altercation outside a Rangiora hotel was yesterday found guilty by a jury in the District Court on a charge of injuring with disregard to safety. Michael John Gillespie, aged 26, a labourer, was found not guilty on an alternative charge of injuring David George Schofield with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on June 20 last year.

He was remanded for sentence by Judge Pain. Gillespie had allegedly been annoying women competitors in a pool competition in the public bar at the Red Lion Tavern at Rangiora. There was a scuffle outside the hotel after Gillespie left, involving Gillespie, Mr Schofield and several others. At one stage Gillespie was seen to be holding what one witness had asserted looked like a knife. He threw the object into his car.

Evidence was given that Gillespie had been held by his hair over the bonnet of his car by Mr Schofield while Mr Schofield’s accomplices rained blows on his head.

Counsel for the defendant, Mr G. R. Lascelles, had earlier told the Court that Gillespie was unable to give evidence because he was unconscious or did not remember what happened at the time.

After being struck by the blows Gillespie drove his car on to the wrong side of the road, mounted the footpath and drove towards a group of people standing on the High Street footpath, hitting Mr Schofield, who suffered three broken ribs and was unable to work for seven weeks. In his final address the Crown prosecutor, Mr P. G. S. Penlington, Q.C., said that the central issue was the state of mind of Gillespie before and at the time that the car struck Mr Schofield.

“The defence says the car was driven by the accused, struck Schofield and he was injured — then says this was done in a state of automatism,” Mr Penlington said.

Evidence had been heard the previous day from Dr S. F. Avery, a Christchurch doctor with specialist training in neurology. He said that blows to the head Could cause a loss of effective reasoning and that it was reasonable that there could be doubts as to Gillespie’s ability to concsiously formulate a course of action at the time of the incident.

He gave the example of sportsmen experiencing episodes of amnesia after a hard tackle or similar event. The players could be able to continue playing, although they may not later be able to recall that part of the game. “There is no way that the accused was in a state of automatism,” Mr Penlington said. He asked the jury to set aside the other incidents that had occurred that evening. “Because they occurred doesn’t mean that Gillespie should be acquitted on that account.” Mr Penlington said there was no medical evidence before the Court on Gillespie’s condition on the night. Dr Avery had not examined Gillespie until October. “We have got blows to the head but no evidence of head injury. Even if we have got evidence there is no evidence of the severity of the injury.” While driving Gillespie had had to negotiate his way around several obstacles, something Mr Pen-lington likened to a driving test. “A picture of purposeful behaviour,” he said. Gillespie did receive blows to the head but was not concussed, Mr Penlington submitted. It was far more likely that be had received blows to the head and then reacted in anger, Mr Penlington said. Mr Lascelles said the jurors should pay attention to the fact that Gillespie had thrown away the weapon he had been carrying. “That tells you about the character of Mr Gillespie. He threw away his sole means of defence,” he said. “It could have been a screwdriver, no-one said it was a knife.” Mr Lascelles said that Dr Avery’s evidence had thrown some very real doubt on to the events. In summing up, Judge Pain said it was possible the defendant was not responsible for his actions. The jury must be satisfied Gillespie had a complete lack of understanding of what he was doing if they were to find him not guilty of both charges, he said. “The real issue is what was the accused’s state at the time he drove,” the Judge said. “It is very easy to sidestep something by saying you can’t remember. The accused cannot give evidence because he doesn’t remember what happened at the time.” f