Reserved decision in firearm case

Press, 5 July 1985, Page 12

Reserved decision in firearm case

After a four-day hearing in the District Court yesterday of Arms Act charges against nine members of the Highway 61 club, alleging their possession of a pistol and three Molotov cocktails found at the club’s headquarters on April 4, Judge Palmer reserved decision until today. The charges were of possessing a pistol when not authorised or permitted to have possession of it, and with possessing explosives, in the form of three Molotov cocktails, without lawful purpose. They were brought as a result of the finding by the

police of a loaded .22 calibre cut-down rifle in a hole in weatherboards, and three petrol-filled beer bottles with cloth in their tops, on a porch. The police search was made during inquiries in conjunction with a murder investigation. The defendants are John Harry Akuhata, aged 26, Taui Thompson, aged 30, and Epi Jack Marino, aged 32 (all represented by Mr M. J. Knowles); Lionel Hatarei Chapman, aged 28, Ashley Vernon Davies, aged 25, and John Pomare Maniopoto, aged 26 (all represented by Mr Erno Bedo); Larry Matthew Collier, aged 29 (Mr M. J. B, Hobbs); and

Patrick Napier Hutana, aged 21, and Gavin Stuart Spooner, aged 28 (both represented by Mr G. R. Lascelles). Sergeant C. M. Maling prosecuted. Evidence or submissions by the remaining four witnesses were heard yesterday. They were Collier, Davies, Hutana, and Spooner. Their evidence was along similar lines to that given by the other defendants on Wednesday — that they lived at other addresses and that they stayed at the club’s headquarters in Worcester Street on occasions.

The defendants said they had given the headquarters as their address when asked by the police during the search on April 4 because of the frequency of police searches, and the damage caused to the headquarters. They did not want this to occur to their own homes. The defendants also denied knowledge of the pistol or petrol-filled bottles found by the police. Evidence yesterday was that such bottles were frequently used when draining motorcycle fuel tanks and cleaning parts when working on machines. Mr Hobbs submitted on Collier’s behalf that the police had failed to prove that Collier was an occupier of the headquarters. There was no evidence of his rights of use of the premises, or whether he contributed in any way towards the rental or upkeep of the premises. There was

no evidence of Collier’s personal clothing or effects being at the headquarters. The only evidence on which the prosecution relied was Collier’s saying he lived at the headquarters, and at another address. Mr Hobbs submitted that without evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that Collier was an occupier the “inverted onus” became “unbearable.” The inverted onus referred to the provision that occupiers of premises at which a firearm was found could be charged with its ownership if no proof of a person’s owning it was established. Mr Lascelles, during counsel’s final submissions, contended that the defendants had exercised “a freedom but not a right” to go to the club’s headquarters. The police had produced no evidence of who owned the premises or paid the rent.