Jail for attack on man thrown in river

Press, 2 April 1985, Page 4

Jail for attack on man thrown in river

For what was described as a frenzied attack on a man who suffered a fearful beating before being stripped and thrown naked into a flooded river, two men were jailed by Mr Justice Hardie Boys in the High Court yesterday. Michael William Crump, aged 22, was jailed for five years on a charge of attempting to murder Verral Huia Nga Weke-Tuhimata in December, 1983.

Dennis John Daily, aged 34, was jailed for two years and three months on a charge of injuring Mr WekeTuhimata with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Mr R. B Squire, of Wellington, appeared for the Crown.

Both Crump and Daily were found guilty on the charges by a High Court jury after a trial at Nelson earlier this year. During their trial, evidence was given that a birthday party for a man named Sissons was held at the Rockville Hall on the evening of December 2, 1983. Crump, Daily, and Mr Weke-Tuhimata attended.

There was a slight difference of opinion between Daily and Mr Weke-Tuhi-mata but it did not develop into anything serious. As Daily and Crump were

leaving in Daily’s car, Mr Weke-Tuhimata went with them. He had been offered the ride earlier by Crump but Daily was not happy about the arrangement. While they were driving towards Collingwood Daily stopped the car and ordered Mr Weke-Tuhimata to get out Crump leaped from the car and attacked him with a knife, slashing the inside of the wrist near the radial artery. Grasping Mr Weke-Tuhi-mata, Crump held the knife at his throat threatening to cut it and only desisted when Daily intervened. Crump and Daily then gave Mr Weke-Tuhimata what was described as a fearful beating. They stripped him naked, dragged him to a bridge, and then flung him into the river which was in flood and was running swiftly. Fortunately, Mr WekeTuhimata was a strong swimmer and in spite of his weakened condition from the beating he was able to reach the bank after being carried some distance down stream. There he dug himself into a hole in the sand and later moved to a silage pit. He later made his way to get help. Mr D. X Maze, of Nelson, for Crump, said that he had

gone to a hotel in the afternoon and then on to a party so that by the time the offence was committed in the early hours of the next morning he was grossly intoxicated and had little or no recollection of events.

The offence was inexplicable because there was no animosity between Crump and Mr Weke-Tuhimata. It was Daily who stopped the car and ordered Mr WekeTuhimata from the vehicle. Crump slashed his wrist with a knife but Crump was not the instigator of the attack. Nor was the offence planned.

Crump could not have carried out the offence without Daily’s assistance, especially throwing the man off the bridge.

At the crucial time of his life Crump had no family support. From the age of two to eight he lived in foster homes and then for a brief time with his mother before she sent him to his father who had remarried. As the situation at home was intolerable he left at the age of 14 to make his own way in the world.

Because of his problem with alcohol Crump had told the probation officer that he would drink as much as he

could whenever he could get it Crump had had a longterm association with a woman and now had two children by her, the last being born after his arrest. His de facto wife and child could not join him because of the standard of accommodation where he was living. There was no water and sanitation and it was ratinfested. Although he had previous convictions, the maximum term Crump had served was six months. Most of his convictions were for disorderly offences arising from over-consumption of alcohol. He had been in custody for a year, Mr Maze said. For Daily, Mr K. N. Hampton said that he did not really know Crump, with whom he had had only two brief meetings previously. Daily was asked to bring his stereo equipment which he valued highly to the party two hours before it began. During the party celebrations he drank only moderately and had nothing to do with Crump or Mr Weke-Tuhimata while they were in the hall.

As Daily was packing up his equipment, Crump asked him for a lift and as they

were about to drive off Mr Weke-Tuhimata suddenly jumped in the back of the car. Daily had no quarrel with him.

While they were driving home, Crump and Mr WekeTuhimata had a disagreement and punches were thrown and so Daily stopped the car and told Mr WekeTuhimata to get out. Crump slashed Mr Weke-Tuhi-mata’s arm near the wrist with a knife.

While the two were grappling with each other Daily pulled them apart. Apparently Crump went berserk with the knife and threatened Daily with it. Daily was intimidated and took the view that if he left Mr Weke-Tuhimata with Crump his life would be in danger. It was not accepted by Daily that he had assaulted Mr Weke-Tuhimata with the axe handle but if he did it was only in a minor way because he suffered only minor bruising. While they were near the bridge, Crump again went berserk with the knife. He stripped and searched Mr Weke-Tuhimata and Daily, in his confused state, realised that the only real chance of saving Mr WekeTuhimata was to throw him in the river to get him out of Crump’s clutches.

Daily whispered to Mr Weke-Tuhimata that . he should play dead and the latter feigned unconsciousness. Later, Daily returned to the scene to search for Mr Weke-Tuhimata. When he went to the police Daily expressed shame for the part he had played in the attack on the man.

His employers spoke well of Daily and he had established a home for his family. Imprisonment would cause his wife and children distress. Daily had not instigated the violence and had played a minor role in the offence.

Because he was unable to take a job on an oil rig off the Taranaki coast Daily had lost considerable income.

Mr Hampton submitted that Daily could be dealt with short of imprisonment. It was an extraordinary case and an extremely serious one, his Honour said. Although there had been no planned attack, the unfortunate man was subjected to a sustained and wild assault over some time.

The prolonged beating was done on a defenceless man who was badly injured from almost the outset. It was obvious that he was very lucky to be alive. Perhaps it was because of Daily’s intervention when Crump was threatening to use the knife again that

saved the situation. Mr Weke-Tuhimata’s survival was also probably a result of his very good physique enabling him to overcome an ordeal to which many others would have succumbed.

It was very hard to know what happened and what had caused the offences. In the witness-box Crump claimed to have no memory of the events and Daily, whom he assumed could have told what had happened, elected, as was his right, not to do so. A version of events which was not consistent with the evidence of the complainant had been put forward by Mr Hampton and both counsel sought to involve the other accused for more responsibility than he was prepared to accept. It was clear that Crump, who had a severe drinking problem, chose not to try to cure it but to indulge instead by drinking himself silly with the encouragement of stupid people who thought that that sort of thing was funny, if not desirable. “You have recognised yourself that if you drink enough you go berserk and that is plainly what you did on this occasion,” his Honour said.

Crump was assisted by Daily and the final act of throwing the man into the river could not have been

done by Crump alone.

“But I have to recognise that the extent of violence in our midst is so brightening and so sickening that the courts have a clear duty to deal with it severely/’ said his honour. He still could see no real explanation for Daily’s part. What he thought had happened was that Daily- got himself into a situation quite beyond his control and in some extraordinary way got himself caught up in Crump’s frenzy. Daily had beaten the man with the axe handle and helped to drag him along to the bridge and to remove his clothes — Crump could not have done that by himself. He had helped Crump to throw him in the river. He was entitled to take into account that Daily had played a lesser role than Crump. Daily was really a first offender and had a great deal to his credit because of his family situation. “I feel very sorry for your wife and family, but I cannot properly discharge my responsibilities to the community by allowing Mr Hampton’s plea to. prevail and not impose a prison sentence on you,” his Honour told him. “In view of the rather horrific nature of this crime, I have a clear duty to impose a sentence of imprisonment.”