KAITAIA SHOOTING

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 May 1933, Page 2

KAITAIA SHOOTING

MAORI YOUTH ACQUITTED. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, May 12. The five days’ trial of the Maori youth, Riwi Manuel, on the charge of murdering his employer, Hati Robson, at Pihepoti, near Kaitaia, on January! 8, ended to-night with a verdict of not guilty. Mr. Trimmer, addressing the jury, for the defence, said that Robson died of a gunshot wound. That could scarcely be denied, but that Manuel fired the shot was emphatically contested. Mr. Meredith, for the Crown, said the boy had admitted that he intended to injure. The point was whether he knew what he did was likely to cause death, and whether he was reckless. Whether he did or not, it was open to the jury to consider he did not know that death was likely to result. In that case, the charge of murder would be reduced to manslaughter. Mr. Justice Herdman said that there was culpable homicide, amounting to murder, if the offender meant to cause injury likely to result in death; and if he was reckless, whether death followed or not. If a person used a gun to cause injury without such recklessness and death resulted, he would be guilty of manslaughter. The conduct of the police throughout the proceedings had been scrupulously fair. They were particularly careful to see that the lad made a statement free from influence. There could be no suggestion that any statement the lad made was haunted by fear. The foundation of the case was the statement made by the boy in which he said he stood in the doorway of Hati Robson’s room and shot him. There were various circumstances that might lead them to consider the boy’s statement was in deed and fact true. There was no evidence to implicate Thomas. The

suggestion that he had anything to do with the case was founded upon the flimsiest possible evidence —indeed no evidence at all.

“If you conclude that, without intending to kill, the accused fired at Robson, it is your duty to bring in a verdict of manslaughter,’ said His Honor. If they came to the conclusion that the boy’s statements were not to be relied on, then, of course, the case for the Crown would fall to the ground, but it was difficult to see how they could be rejected in the circumstances.”

The jury were absent four hours and twenty minutes before they returned a verdict of not guilty.