October 06, 2012

Jury to consider 'standover' verdicts on Monday

By David Clarkson

A jury will decide next week whether a dispute over missing money was gangland-style standover tactics or a consumer affairs episode.

John Sandston, defence counsel for one of the accused, told the jury in the High Court blackmail trial: ?The Crown put to you that this was an episode of The Sopranos; I put it to you it is an episode of Fair Go.?

The trial had arisen from efforts to collect a debt, he said.

The Crown finished its presentation of evidence on Thursday, the fourth day of the trial. The jury heard closing addresses from the prosecution and four defence counsel yesterday, and Justice Robert Dobson will sum up to the jury from 8.30am on Monday before the jury retires to consider its verdicts.

Before the court are Terry Jones, 43, and his partner Anna Heloise Horgan, 37, of Nelson, and Ritchie Stuart Clutterbuck, 49, and Leon Delshannon Turner, 37, of Christchurch.

All deny the charge of blackmail, with the Crown alleging threats were made to a Nelson farmer to harm him or his family to force him to repay about $35,000 cash that went missing when it was hidden in a deer shed on his farm.

The trial was told that the farmer buried the cash in a locked shed on his property at the request of Jones, who was an old friend. The Crown alleged threats were made in a meeting in a burger outlet carpark in Christchurch.

For Horgan, Sandston said there was no evidence that she knew any threats would be made, and he asked them to consider the credibility of the farmer who alleged the threats had been made.

Sandston claimed that the farmer had stolen the money and was trying to ?wriggle out of it? with a claim of blackmail. ?He was a thief and he?s been found out. He was a liar and a thief and he?s elevated these negotiations, this stern talk, to something worse than it was.?

For Turner, Paul Norcross said the Crown had reduced its allegation that his client was a principal offender, to him being a party by assisting or encouraging what happened. Turner had gone along to the meeting to drive his friend Clutterbuck, and he had made some comments. He should not have made smart comments but it was a far cry from threatening to endanger people.

Clutterbuck did not need his encouragement or assistance. ?Some people might find Mr Turner a frightening looking person, I don?t know. But we cannot be criminalising people because of the way they look.?

James Rapley, for Jones, said his client had not asked for any threat to be made. The meeting in Christchurch was ?the oddest standover meeting you can think of?. The so-called blackmail comment had been vague and uncertain and the farmer accepted that no direct threat had been made.

He pointed out that after meeting in a van with Clutterbuck and Turner, he had twice gone back to his own car where his daughter was sitting, and had twice returned to the meeting.

He said the farmer had made the allegations to get himself out of a difficult situation and the jury would be concerned about relying on his evidence.

For Clutterbuck, Bryan Green said there had actually been no threats for gain, and the jury should treat the farmer?s evidence with caution. The farmer had said that he had not regarded comments made by Clutterbuck as a threat, when they related to a claim on his farm and the missing cash.

Crown prosecutor Kathy Bell said the farmer had been scared by the standover tactics. He had gone to the meeting offering to repay $20,000 of the missing money, and had ended up offering to lodge a $100,000 claim over his farm.

He had been told, ?People go underground for stuff like this,? and he had taken the threat seriously, she said.