‘Act of passion’ was manslaughter

Press, 12 June 1987, Page 7

‘Act of passion’ was manslaughter

A man who stabbed the lover of his former de‘ facto wife was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, in the High Court yesterday. Donald Thomas McGillivray, aged 26, a solo father, was remanded in custody until July 2, for a probation officer’s report and sentence. McGillivray stabbed

Sheldon William Thom, aged 27, as he lay sleeping in a Dunarvon Street, Avonside, house on December 20. Mr Thom died in Christchurch Hospital. McGillivray appeared before Justice Tipping and a High Court jury. In his final address, counsel for the accused, Mr P. H. B. Hall, said the

stabbing and events leading to it was "a real life tragedy." /

He asked members of the jury to focus on what was in McGillivray’s mind in the moments before he wounded Mr Thom. The hand that held the knife was not driven by a brain with murderous intent Rather, the stabbing was a spontaneous act of

passion brought about by provocation by the deceased, Mr Hall said.

Provocation did not have to be a deliberate act, and the sight of Mr Thom asleep in the bed of Miss Jane Tweedie was enough to make McGillivray loose his self control. There was no planning or premeditation for murder. All evidence pointed to a spontaneous outburst, Mr Hall said.

If McGillivray went looking for a weapon upon finding Mr Thom asleep, he would have looked in a kitchen drawer, the obvious place to find a knife.

He instead was going to the back door when he suddenly saw a knife on top of the fridge. The wound was inflicted only seconds later.

The wound was not in the area where a layman would have thought the heart to be. The stab was a “lashing out” and not aimed at any vital organs.

The knife had not been plunged in to the hilt. An expert witness agreed that the last, fatal wound which damaged the aorta might have been made as the deceased grabbed hold of McGillivray’s hand and the knife.

Upon realising he had inflicted a serious wound, a murderer might have stabbed again, but McGillivray dashed for help, said Mr Hall.

He asked If a murderer would have shown remorse at what he had done while with the police and - continue to show remorse six months later in the Court.

A psychiatrist . had earlier said McGillivrary had an intense obsession with the reuniting of Miss Tweedie and their children as a family unit

His mind would block out anything which threatened that goal. Mr Hall said McGillivrary bottled up emotions when he had been provoked by Mr Thom or had come across evidence to suggest a reconciliation with Miss Tweedie was not possible. The sight of Mr Thom lying on the family bed “as if he owned the place” was something he could not deny. It released a flood of emotions and McGillivray lost his self control.

Letters written by Miss Tweedie several months earlier had given him just cause to think a reconciliation was possible,

said Mr Hall. ’ Mr D. J. L. Saunders said for the Crown that McGillivray had entered Miss Tweedie’s house out of jealousy and with intent to murder Mr Thom.

He said McGillivray must have known there was no chance of a reconciliation. Mr Thom had been living with Miss Tweedie and she was eight months pregnant with his child.

It would not have been an unexpected shock or suprise for him to find Mr Thom in the house.

Mr Saunders argued that seeing a man lying asleep was not provocation enough for someone to lose their self control. ■ Eerlier acts of provocation had not caused McGillivray to loose . his self control.

“The accused clearly had in mind by December. 1986 that Sheldon Thom was back in the house and he was the stumbling block to any further chance of reconciliation,” he said.

The emotional aspects of the case were obvious but if the jury viewed it dispassionately and clearly, it would return a verdict of murder, said Mr Saunders.