Addresses in Weka Pass murder trial

Press, 2 August 1985, Page 22

Addresses in Weka Pass murder trial

The fatal shooting of a man in a railway cutting in the Weka Pass on January 15 had been the result of a falling-out of thieves, submitted defence counsel, Mr K. N. Hampton, in the High Court yesterday. In his final address to the jury in defence of a charge of murder against Wayne Charles Mazeiritis, aged 25, Mr Hampton said the accused had been provoked into losing his control after constant abuse and being called a coward for not taking part in an armed robbery of a hotel. He had fired the rifle after receiving “the ultimate taunt.” Mazeiritis had denied the charge of the murder of Stewart Douglas Burdett, aged 25, outside a hut in the Weka Pass railway cutting, above Frog Rock. Crown evidence was heard on the first three days of the trial and the jury retired at 3.35 p.m. yesterday to consider its verdict, after hearing counsel’s final addresses and Mr Justice Heron’s summing-up yesterday. Mr Hampton said in his address, lasting 90 minutes, that Mazeiritis accepted that he was guilty of manslaughter, but his actions, on the evidence in the case, were not murder. Mr Hampton appeared with Mr S. J. Hembrow, of Greymouth, for Mazeiritis. Mr Brian McClelland, Q.C., and Miss K. P. McDonald, appeared for the Crown. Evidence in the trial was that Mr Burdett’s body was found by a railway worker alongside a railway hut. Mr Burdett had died almost instantly from a shot in the head from a .243 calibre sporting rifle. In his final address for the Crown, Mr McClelland submitted that as a matter of law there could be only two verdicts — murder or manslaughter. A verdict of not guilty was not possible, because it had been proved that Mazeiritis caused Mr Burdett’s death by an unlawful act of pointing the rifle at him, as a result of which he died. There was no question in this case of an accidental

shooting. Mazeiritis had pointed the rifle deliberately at Mr Burdett, pulled the trigger, and caused his death. Mr McClelland said the Crown contended that this was a case of deliberate, cold-blooded murder. The motive appeared to have been for gain, because as a result of killing Mr Burdett Mazeiritis stole his car, his - money, and even his cannabis, the last items from the body of the man he had just shot. Mr McClelland asked why a man with Mr Burdett’s disabilities would voluntarily adopt a kneeling position and suggested, rather, that Mr Burdett had been frogmarched up the hill to the hut in the railway cutting and virtually executed in that position, with a bullet fired through his head. It seemed an unlikely reaction of Mazeiritis, if he had been abused by Mr Burdett all the way from the Hurunui Hotel to Frog Rock, and called “yellow” and “a coward,” to stop the car and take the rifle up the hill for target practice. Mr McClelland suggested that Mazeiritis’s story of intending an armed robbery at the Hurunui Hotel was untrue. He had had to make himself out as being the driver so that he became the hero, “the reluctant driver,” who “chickened out” of the robbery, drove past the hotel, and was abused by Mr Burdett for being a coward. On the question of provocation for Mazeiritis’s actions, Mr McClelland said anger was not sufficient to raise as a defence of provocation. An accused must be shown to have lost selfcontrol. “Nowhere is there a suggestion from the accused that he ever got to that stage.” Mr McClelland submitted that Mazeiritis’s actions constituted murder by means of a gunshot wound to the head while Mr Burdett knelt into the corner of the railway hut. Mr Hampton, in his final address, said the Crown ad-

dress had “pushed and pushed” the theory — with emotive words such as “execution” and “frog-march” — that Mr Burdett had been on his knees cowering into a corner when shot. This ignored the Crown’s own evidence, from a pathologist, that Mr Burdett might well have been in a sitting position, facing not into a wall but along the railway track. Mr Burdett had turned his head away from Mazeiritis in the “ultimate, contemptuous taunt.” Mr Hampton said the picture jurors would have in this case was not a pretty one. Mazeiritis was not an attractive man. He was a sneak thief, a petty criminal, a down-and-outer. He was a man who indulged in conduct abhorrent to everyone, and the defence had not tried to hide that. He had used assumed names and used drugs. However, that was the background to why he got involved in such tragic events involving Mr Burdett’s death. After Mazeiritis and Mr Burdett had travelled to near Hanmer Springs to retrieve the rifle that Mazeiritis had previously stolen and hidden in bush, he had backed out of committing an armed robbery of a hotel. That type of crime was well out of the league of Mazeiritis, who was more a sneak thief. That was the real crux of the tragedy, when he backed down from the robbery. Mr Burdett had then “got at him” with his taunts of being “a coward, yellow, and having no guts.” It was a falling out of thieves that led to the rifle’s being fired and Mr Burdett’s being killed. Mazeiritis was a petty, despicable thief but he was not a murderer. He was guilty of manslaughter only, by committing an unlawful act of pointing the rifle and pulling the trigger. Mazeiritis had not intended to kill or injure Mr Burdett. Mr Hampton said that Mazeiritis’s written statement to a detective after his apprehension on the West Coast was consistent with evidence given by Crown witnesses, and could be taken as a true account. There was no disparity in his account with that of Mr John Lintott who saw the man with the rifle walking behind. Evidence was that Mr Lintott had seen the two men walking parallel with the fence just above the road. Mr Lintott had seen the men momentarily, while travelling at lOOkm/h, and had not seen their positions after this when they walked uphill to the hut. Mr Hampton said it was not a case of Mr Burdett’s being a hostage of Mazeiritis. Both men had been involved in breaking the window of the hut and evidence was of both men’s fingerprints being found on the broken glass. Mr Bur-

dett’s fingerprints were found on opposite surfaces of a piece of glass. Mazeiritis’s statement was that Mr Burdett wanted him to break into the hut but he would not. This had led to Mr Burdett’s renewing his taunts of “yellow” and “coward.” Mazeiritis was not aiming the rifle but was pointing it towards Mr Burdett, who had given the ultimate taunt of calling him a coward and turning his head away. Mazeiritis had then turned away and pulled the trigger. Mazeiritis had then gone over to Mr Burdett, dropping the rifle in horror. He had not intended the consequences of his firing the shot. Mr Hampton said that Mr Burdett’s actions in being involved with the breaking of the hut window were not those of a person having been frog-marched there and cowering for his life. He suggested also that Mazeiritis would not have chosen a hillside above a main highway as a place to deliberately kill Mr Burdett. The men had had to cross the road from where the car was parked. Mr Hampton said Mazeiritis had wanted to “disengage” himself from Mr Burdett’s taunts when he stopped the car and took the rifle* up the hill to do some target practice but had then been followed by Mr Burdett. Mazeiritis had got so worked up and lost control because of the taunts and fired the rifle, which had a trigger pressure of only IValb compared with 6¥zlb for a normal .303 rifle. Mr Hampton said Mazeiritis’s account of Mr Burdett’s suggesting the robbery was credible. Evidence was that both men had smoked cannabis, and Mr Burdett was prepared to steal from the railway hut. He had stolen the car he was using from his girlfriend in Auckland seven weeks before. Mr Burdett had suggested the hotel robbery to get money for dope but Mazeiritis had “chickened out” and that was when the two thieves fell out. Mr Justice Heron, in his summing-up, directed that, having regard to the way the case had been conducted, the jury could not return a verdict of not guilty. The verdict had to be either guilty of murder or guilty of manslaughter. Defendant stayed at hostel In a report yesterday on the murder trial of Wayne Charles Mazeiritis it was stated that a witness had said Mazeiritis had spoken of staying at the Latimer Lodge. In fact, Mazeiritis had been staying at the Latimer Hostel, which has no connection with the Latimer Lodge.