• Full Story

Opotiki jury told to be sure on voice-identification

Print

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:15a.m.

Retired school teacher John Rowe

Retired school teacher John Rowe

Justice Geoffrey Venning has warned the jury trying two teenage girls charged with the murder of retired Opotiki teacher John Rowe to be careful of voice-identification on intercepted phone conversations played to them.

The conversations were between the 15-year-old accused, whose name was suppressed, her boyfriend and her mother.

Her co-accused was 18-year-old Courtney Churchward.

Justice Venning told the jury in the Rotorua High Court today that although they had heard the tapes of the conversations and would have transcripts of them, mistakes could be made transcribing intercepts, leading to gross miscarriages of justice.

He explained the various legal elements of murder and manslaughter, emphasising a need for the jury to be convinced the accused had murderous intent when they attacked Mr Rowe.

He reminded them Churchward's counsel had said while she accepted she had caused Mr Rowe's death, she didn't have murderous intent - that she meant to knock him out, not kill him.

She had acted without thinking of the consequences.

The 15-year-old's counsel had submitted she didn't assist or encourage Churchward to kill Mr Rowe.

On the evidence, she could be guilty of burglary or robbery but not murder.

Justice Venning urged the jury to work towards a unanimous verdict.

The jury retired at 10am.

NZPA

 

 

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

25 Nov 2009 03:35p.m.

cynical wrote:

This is what is wrong with the Justice system - assault with (or without) a weapon can be construed as "just wanting to knock someone out". Especially a child, or old person. Where do these tales of wisdom come from? The Justice system should be deeply ashamed of this. Just guilty of burglary or robbery? I am at a loss for words - HOW CAN THAT BE? Is that to steer the Jury towards manslaughter, as if it was an accident that they INVADED this man's home, his castle, his sanctuary? Shame on the defence, and the summing up, shame on the legal profession.