Two men found guilty of mall shop burglary

Press, 21 April 1984, Page 4

Two men found guilty of mall shop burglary

A jury in the District Court on Thursday evening found two men guilty of the burglary of a New Brighton shop in the early morning of November 25 last year, and one guilty of assaulting a policeman who was hit with a hammer as he went to the shop entrance in answer to an alarm.

Judge Pain had told jurors in his summing up that the prime issue in the case was identification. He remanded the defendants, Brent Rory Coulston, aged 25, unemployed (Dr W. G. G. A. Young), and Stephen John Rayner, aged 33, a workman (Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon), in custody to May 2 for sentence. The defendants had denied the joint charge of burglary of the shop of Hallenstein Bros., Ltd, in New Brighton Mall. Coulston had also denied a charge of assaulting Constable D. J. Worsfold with intent to avoid arrest, upon the commission of a crime. The jury retired at 5.45 p.m. on Thursday and gave its verdict at 9 p.m. No defence evidence was called. Rayner was also remanded to May 2 for sentence on a charge, to which he pleaded guilty, of theft of a handbag and contents valued at $2O, belonging to Deborah Ann Chamberlain, on October 29 last year. Prosecution evidence in the trial had been that Constable Worsfold, when approaching the shop In answer to a silent burglar alarm, saw a person wearing a balaclava emerge from the broken glass door of the shop, carrying cloth-

ing. The person then approaached the constable and hit him twice with what appeared to be a hammer, and ran off after being hit on the head with the constable’s baton.

As the constable began to chase this intruder a second Cerson emerged from the roken doorway and was chased briefly by the constable. Blood was found on the floor and on clothing in the shop, and in the mall, and on clothing found in a nearby churchyard, near where a car frequently driven by Rayner was found parked. Evidence was that Constable Worsfold told a detective the first person was either Coulston or another suspect he named. He said his identification was made largely by the nose visible from the opening in the balaclava. Constable Worsfold’s evidence also was that he did not see the second person’s face as he left the shop but, about two hours later when Rayner approached his car in Shaw Avenue, the constable recognised him by his clothing and build as the same person who had run from the shop. Rayner had a large amount of congealed blood on a hand, and an injury to his knuckles. Mr B. M. Stanaway in his final address for the Crown, submitted that on all the evidence, there could be no doubt that both defendants had been shown to be the offenders. Dr Young submitted in his address to the jury that the Crown’s case on identification was laughable. It had gone no further than to

prove that Coulston lived in the same house as somebody who might have been involved, or knew somebody associated with the events of that night He said that the constable's identification was based on Coulston’s nose, but there was nothing distinctive about his nose. Also, there was no similarity between Coulston and the other man who the constable named as the possible first suspect. Dr Young was critical of discrepancies in the notes of identification in the first and second job sheets. He said that, in the first sheet, the constable had referred to the first intruder to leave the shop as possibly a male, but in the second the identification was of a male person. “Why did he put this if he was not in doubt?” Dr Young asked. He contended that the prosecution evidence had involved a process of recollection, altering, and shifting. After Coulston had been arrested, and then seen in the police interview room, changes had been made in the description, in the second job sheet. Coulston lived at a house in which police said items of clothing connected with the burglary were found, but Coulston had not been identified as associated with those items. The Crown contended that Coulston was the offender wearing a balaclava, and who had been hit on thehead with the constable’s baton, yet a medical examination showed that a wound on Coulston’s scalp was not likelty to have occurred within the previous 24 hours.

Dr Young said the Crown’s case was inconsistent, and submitted that, on the evidence, it would be dangerous to convict Coulston. Mr Fitzgibbon said that the constable had not recognised the second person leaving the shop as Rayner. The Crown alleged that Rayner was later identified at his car, from his clothing and hair style. He said there was nothing about Rayner’s hair style, and referred to the “varying” evidence as to Rayner’s hair style, height, and clothing. The recognition was based not on facial characteristics. Mr Fitzgibbon said it was illogical that Rayner should leave his vehicle near the scene, and later “come trotting down the street into the arms of the law.” No confession had been made by Rayner. Mr Fitzgibbon said the police had made a deduction which was so easy to make and so easy to be wrong, in trying to connect Rayner’s bleeding with blood on the clothing. Rayner’s blood group was shared by a quarter million New Zealanders. He referred to the evidence of one police witness that Rayner’s car engine was warm, while another said it was cold. Rayner should not be convicted on botched evidence, Mr Fitzgibbon said. The Judge said in his summing up that the prime issue in this case was identification. Only if jurors were satisfied beyond reasosnable doubt that the two defendants were the persons who bad come out of the shop could they find them guilty.