Jury says Gundry not guilty of murder and manslaughter

Print

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 7:44p.m.

Anger boiled over among supporters and family of Gene Atkins outside the High Court at Auckland after the man accused of his murder was found not guilty,

As they left court the group attacked waiting photographers.

Earlier Alan Gundry who fired two shots, killing Mr Atkins, 28, a friend who had become increasingly violent at his home, was found not guilty of his murder or manslaughter.

Gundry, 30, shot Mr Atkins at his home in Orewa on January 12. Mr Atkins was looking for his partner Sarah Jane Dean, whom he had been fighting with earlier that night.

Mr Atkins had been drinking heavily and the court had been told that five people had witnessed his aggression at a dinner party that evening which had gone badly wrong.

Outside the court Alan Gundry's father told NZPA he was glad it was all over.

"I don't want to say anything bad about the Atkins family, because they were good friends, but we're just relieved this is all over."

Close Gundry family friend Janine Wii said Alan Gundry's two daughters, Ava, 6 and 18-month-old Amelia had written letters to their father today, which read: "To Daddy on your saddest day, we love you."

"His partner Nicole is shattered.

"It's been tormenting for both families," Ms Wii said.

Defence lawyer Graeme Newell said his client was relieved.

"This matter has been resolved within nine months. They were good friends. There was never going to be a celebration after this result, simply relief.

"Clearly the jury decided it was self-defence, there can't be any doubt about that," Mr Newell said.

Detective Sergeant Andrew Wong did not want to comment on the verdicts, but said the Atkins family were obviously upset with the outcome.

Gundry pleaded not guilty to murder, saying the shots were fired in self-defence.

During the case the defence told the court Gundry feared for his life and took action in a "moment of crisis".

Gundry was legally entitled to defend himself and others and self-defence was a complete defence to murder, Mr Newell told the jury.

Prosecutor Kevin Glubb said Mr Atkins had no time to respond to the threat of Gundry's gun.

The Crown rejected Gundry's argument that he feared for his life and did not believe he was provoked to an extent he was incapable of knowing what he was doing. The jury deliberated for more than seven and a half hours.

NZPA
 
Listen to Graeme Neville, who represented Alan Gundry, on RadioLIVE
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

26 Oct 2009 07:05p.m.

Andrew wrote:

What planet are you from Elizabeth? The courts have affirmed many times that killing in self defence if confronted by someone wielding a deadly weapon, obviously intending to use it, is justifiable. As for calling the police - what do you do and where do you go before the police arrive? As for shooting at his legs - are you a crack shot? Even the OAS will tell you always to aim at body mass. You will stand a better chance of quickly incapacitating an armed attacker. And NEVER produce a firearm in self-defence unless you seriously mean to use it.

25 Oct 2009 11:15p.m.

LUMUX wrote:

I DONT AGREE WITH YOU ONE BIT LIZZY,, YOU DONT KNOW WOT YOUR REACTIONS WOULD BE UNTIL YOU ARE IN A SITUATION LIKE that. there is a saying like " dont knock it till you have tryed it". so dont comment until you have been in a situation like that.

25 Oct 2009 10:57p.m.

me wrote:

thank you Johnny when you want the police they are not around, and when you dont want them they are always picking on the same old people and never there when needed. . i will keep this in mind i will call the fire brigrade when and ever i need help. Elizabeth watch really tv like paul holmes or shortland street

22 Oct 2009 01:26p.m.

johnny wrote:

Come on.... a split second to think with other people vulnerable.

Why call the police when it takes half an hour for them to arrive. It may have been multiple homicide.

When in trouble call the fire brigade, or ambulance cause the cops turn up as well.

22 Oct 2009 10:23a.m.

Elizabeth wrote:

Me, no I wouldn't allow anyone to hurt my family. But the sensible thing to do is call the police and let them do their job. You can't just randomly shoot someone (twice) and expect them to recover! If he did need to use the gun for self defence, why didn't he aim at the victims legs? Look the point that I’m trying to clarify here is these sorts of cases are important for future similar offences. And there is no doubt in future that a lot of offenders would use this case to help defend them. He needs to take responsibility for killing a human being and for this case he should have got manslaughter. No justice!!!!

22 Oct 2009 09:09a.m.

me wrote:

Yes i agree elizabeth, no one should take anyones's life, what would you do let someone just hurt your family and friends? or would you defend yourself and family? no one every thinks right when they are put on the spot likes this? you just think defend. very very sorry for the Atkins lost

22 Oct 2009 07:35a.m.

Elizabeth wrote:

I am quite disgusted at the public’s views on this so far. No one has the right to end someone’s life especially when the outcome of a gun is death. This is a perfect example of a "licence to kill"! You can't just go ahead and shoot someone with a deadly weapon just because they're a threat! I mean, isn't it the police's job to sort this out! This guy took two shots not one, there's no doubt his conscious was clear! What he should have got was manslaughter, as this was definitely premeditated!

21 Oct 2009 11:29p.m.

Debbie wrote:

Totally agree that you should be able to defend yourself and your family. Clearly the jury agreed in this case and justice has been served.

21 Oct 2009 10:05p.m.

me wrote:

everyone is a victim in this sad time. The Atkins have lost a family member and Alan has to live with this for the rest of his life. At the end of the day what drugs and drinking do to people.

21 Oct 2009 09:40p.m.

Sean wrote:

I think the verdict was a fair call! sorry to the victims family though!