Man committed for trial on shooting charge

Press, 10 September 1985, Page 22

Man committed for trial on shooting charge

A man will face trial in the High Court over his allegedly shooting in the leg another man who was said to have had an involvement with the defendant’s wife for several years. The shooting occurred at the victim’s workplace a month before he was to have left for Australia with the defendant’s wife, according to evidence heard in the District Court yesterday.

After hearing depositions of evidence of three prosecution witnesses, Mrs C. M. Holmes and Mr C. E. R. Wise, Justices of the Peace, held there was sufficient evidence to commit the defendant, aged 69, for trial.

They remanded him on bail terms totalling $7500 pending a date for trial in the High Court. Sergeant M. J. South prosecuted. Miss P. D. Costigan appeared for the defendant. Interim suppression of the names of the defendant and complainant were ordered. The defendant was

charged with discharging a shotgun at the complainant on July 11 with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.

The complainant, called to give evidence, said he was not the complainant and had not laid a charge and did not wish to give evidence.

Sergeant South reminded the complainant of a section of the Summary Proceedings Act which provided that a person could be held in custody for refusing to give evidence. The complainant sought a brief adjournment to seek legal advice. He then gave evidence after the court reconvened. His evidence was that he left work and began walking downstairs when he heard the defendant call out to him. Complainant ran back upstairs but felt something hit him in a leg. He found out later they were shotgun pellets. He was treated at hospital for the injury. Cross-examined, the complainant said he had known

the defendant and his wife for at least 17 years. He and the defendant’s wife had had a relationship on and off for many years. They had intended leaving to live in Australia in mid-August. The defendant had been told this by his wife. Police evidence was that the defendant had obtained a firearm permit from the police and purchased a shotgun on July 9. Interviewed by Detective S. A. Carlton, and in a written statement, the defendant said he was responsible for shooting the complainant. He said he felt sorry for what he had done and that the complainant had been a mate of his for years. He said he had known for some years of the complainant’s involvement with his wife.

He was shattered at the news that his wife was leaving for Australia and he wrote and pleaded with her not to go. He had purchased the shotgun to shoot rabbits and

rats and the like, and had no thought of using it illegally at that stage.

He had taken the gun to the complainant’s workplace intending to shoot just below where the complainant came down the stairs. He had called to the complainant, and meant to ask him not to take his wife to Australia, when the gun discharged. He had not aimed the gun too high in case he injured him. He had not meant to hurt the complainant. It was the first shot he had fired in 50 years. He did not make any allowance for the lift of the shotgun when it fired.

Miss Costigan submitted that there was no case to answer. The defendant’s statement negated any intention on his part to injure the complainant. He wanted to talk to the complainant and persuade him not to take his wife to Australia. The discharge of the shotgun had been accidental, she submitted.