Justice David Boldt summed up the Crown and defence stances on Tuesday morning after closing arguments were heard on Monday in the High Court at Gisborne.
The accused, Tamihere, had chosen not to give evidence, but “no negative conclusion” could be taken from this, according to Boldt.
He outlined that they had a range of evidence to consider from the trial, which started on July 31. Evidence included witness testimony and exhibits such as booklets of photos, maps and diagrams.
The Crown’s case, the judge said, from lawyers Leighvi Maynard and Riki Donnelly, was that a person could not wield a knife with such force without knowing what was likely to happen to the victims. The Crown had also asked if the pair, in attending the party, had made a plan to inflict violence after hearing rival gang members were in attendance.
The defence (lawyers Tiana Epati, Josie Butcher and Manaaki Terekia) said that this inference could not be solely drawn.
The defence argued it could not be proved that the defendant had stabbed anyone, nor the intent. They said he and the deceased who was earlier charged had come to drink with a man known to them, victim Te Paa, whom they knew through being members of gangs.
The judge noted there was mixed testimony on what had happened from the many witnesses. The jury had to ask what the intentions were of the men who attended the party, including whether they had formed a common intent to seriously assault those at the party.
Boldt said the verdict must be decided only on the evidence in the trial, which had been rigorously tested and cross-examined by both the Crown and the defence.
“You are 12 judges,” he said. They therefore had to be “clear-eyed, impartial and objective”.
He said each verdict had to be unanimous, with all 12 members of the jury agreeing. There were four charges and the jury had scope to reach a guilty verdict on some charges while not doing so on others.
“The starting point is presumption of innocence,” the judge said. “Guilt has to be beyond reasonable doubt.”
