A defence lawyer has attacked the crown stance that ?there were no innocent bystanders? on the night Wayne Kerry Bray was punched, kicked, and stomped in a group attack on a Timaru street that left him with fatal injuries.
Jonathan Eaton, counsel for Nicholas John Peters, said the crown theory was flawed when it said all six were involved in the fatal assault on February 2.
He said eye-witnesses were focussed on the victim and might not have noticed if there were innocent bystanders at the time of the assault.
They were also viewing from difficult positions, or from a significant distance at night and all described the assault differently.
?They obviously saw something very fast moving, traumatic, and quite unexpected,? said Mr Eaton in his closing address. ?It is a bit rich for the crown to say you can accept their word that there were no innocent bystanders.?
He said the case against Peters was that he had gone down the hill to where the assault happened, that he admitted punching Mr Bray once in a separate assault at the top of the hill, and that he sent a text and had a conversation that he had been involved in an assault.
The crown also pointed to Peters running off up Bouverie Street when the first police arrived at the scene, but in fact he had stayed after the others had left and the police initially thought he was going to be a witness. He had gone back up the hill to meet his girlfriend and join a large group of young people walking in to the city.
He said none of the young people involved that night had made any conscious decisions of murderous intent. Peters? defence was that he was not involved at all.
The six on trial are John Oliver Jamieson, 20, a fisherman, Morgan Christopher James Parker, 17, a freezing worker, Simon Antony Anglem, 17, a labourer, Ashley Jordan Moffat, 17, a butcher, Peters,17, a freezing worker, and Daniel Raymond Kreegher, 19, a boner. They deny the joint charge of murder.
The trial is before Justice Mark Cooper and a jury in the High Court at Christchurch.
Counsel for Anglem, John Westgate, said his client?s fight with Mr Bray had begun with their chance meeting at the top of Bouverie Street.
?Simon Anglem and Wayne Bray had a one-on-one fight and that was it. That?s all Simon Anglem wanted ? a one-on-one. Wayne Bray was willing to engage in violent acts himself.? Mr Bray would have wanted to fight.
?The problem, and where this becomes rather nasty from Simon Anglem?s point of view, is where others jumped in, and it was none of their business.?
Mr Westgate pointed to a text message from Jamieson on February 6, four days after the assault: ?Just thought it was a big rumble that yeah I would jump in. Didn?t know it was everyone on to one.?
It was nothing to do with the others who jumped in, Mr Westgate said. ?That?s not something that Simon Anglem wanted, or encouraged, or asked for. He didn?t anticipate it, and once it started, Simon Anglem had nothing to do with it. He wasn?t there encouraging; he was doing the opposite, I suggest.?
He said the crown case did not go close to proving that Anglem had committed murder or manslaughter.
Counsel for Moffat, Pip Hall, said his client knew nothing about the prior incidents between Anglem and Mr Bray, and knew nothing about the gang connections that had been referred to in the crown case.
He was not primed that night to attack an identified enemy, and he had no motive to cause harm to Mr Bray.
Moffat was not a member of any gang. It was ?a massive red herring? to suggest that because he later parked his car near the Road Knight?s headquarters, he was connected with that gang.
The trail of blood spots indicated that Moffat had not injured his hand in the assault on Mr Bray but in an earlier fall from a fence in Bouverie Street. Moffat was ?fall-down drunk? that night and had a series of falls.
He said Moffat?s blood found on Mr Bray?s clothing could have come from an accidental touch.
Mr Hall?s closing address will continue on Monday morning.