Two brothers facing robbery charges

Press, 20 November 1987, Page 4

Two brothers facing robbery charges

Crown and defence final addresses were completed yesterday and Mr Justice Williamson will sum up this morning in the trial by jury of two brothers on charges arising from a series of alleged robberies of shops and service stations in Christchurch on June 30 and July 4. The trial began in the High Court on Monday and jurors will consider a verdict after the summ-ing-up.

The accused are Mathew Mark Pakau, aged 31, a painter, and Carlston Pakau, aged 22, unemployed. Mathew Pakau, who is not represented by counsel, faces four charges of robbery when armed with a knife, three of these allegedly committed jointly with his brother. He also faces a joint charge with his brother of assaulting a shopkeeper when armed with a knife, with intent too rob him, and a separate alternative charge of wounding this shopkeeper with intent to facilitate a robbery. Cariston Pakau, who is represented by Mr M. J. Knowles, faced the three joint charges of armed robbery and the joint charge of assaulting a shopkeeper with intent to rob him, when armed with a knife. All charges were denied. Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Crown, which contended that Mathew Pakau was the principal offender having made threats to obtain

money. Carlston Pakau was alleged to have helped his brother and was regarded as a party to the offences. The robberies were alleged to have occurred at the Tuam Street Food Centre on June 30, and the Papanui Service Station, the Stanmore Road 7-Day Dairy, and Bexley Garage on July 4. The alleged assault on the proprietor of the Avondale Al Foodstore in Breezes Road, with intent to rob him was also said to have occurred on July 4.

The Crown case was completed yesterday morning, the fourth day of the trial. Mathew Pakau then gave evidence and denied involvement in any of the robberies. He was asked by Mr Saunders in crossexamination about the police evidence that a finger print identical to his was found on a bread bag in a shop which he was alleged to have robbed. He said he had been in this shop in the afternoon, but not that night (when the robbery allegedly occurred). He said he did not carry knives. In his final address to jurors, Pakau said he had never been charged with any vicious assault, or assault of any kind, in the past He said he was a disciplined man. He had worked at security jobs, at three hotels. If he had wanted to do a robbery any one of the

hotels were guaranteed to have four times as much money as was involved in those robberies put together. If be was going to do an armed robbery he would do it in a tot better way than was described in this trial.

Pakau said be was accused of crimes of aggravated robbery. He was not here to prove his innocence, that was not for him to do. If he had had the statements from the depositions hearing, and time to study them, he could have come out with some embarrassing questioning of Crown witnesses. Mr Knowles called no evidence on behalf of Cariston Pakau. In his final address to jurors he said the evidence of identification was far from satisfactory.

Because three knives were found in the car that he was using at the time that did not make him guilty.

Each count had to be considered on its own and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt The Crown had failed to do that

“Have you ever heard of a getaway car running out of petrol and then the offenders getting a taxi to make their escape. That would be absurd,” Mr Knowles said. “Do not find Cariston Pakau guilty because he told lies, ran away and had a bag.

“Don’t visit the sins of his brother on him,” said Mr Knowles.