Crown could not overcome 'inconvenient truths', says lawyer

Lawyer Russell Fairbrother outlined three reasons why the Crown had failed to prove its case against his client. Photo / File

There were three "inconvenient truths" the Crown could not overcome in its case against a woman on trial in the High Court with murder accused Troy Vincent McHugh, her lawyer Russell Fairbrother told jurors before they retired to consider their verdicts.

The Crown had glossed over those "truths" in closing submissions as they were too insurmountable to directly address, Mr Fairbrother said.

The trial, which was adjourned four days ago, resumed with closing addresses by Mr Fairbrother and Justice Lang.

Mr Fairbrother's client, who has interim name suppression, is jointly charged with McHugh with the aggravated robbery of Kowhai Street resident Jermaine Whatuira, whose house Black Power strong man Douglas "Din" Witeri, 39, was at when he was shot with a single bullet through the eyes about 2.40am on April 20, last year.

Mr Witeri died later that night in Gisborne Hospital.

The woman is also charged with three counts of being an accessory after the fact to the wounding of Mr Witeri, who was not yet dead when she allegedly drove McHugh soon after the shooting to an Aberdeen Road house to hide the gun.

Likewise, the Crown said she might not have known Mr Witeri had died when she allegedly returned the following day to ask occupant Andre Hedge to dispose of the gun and two bags containing clothing, shoes and ammunition allegedly used by McHugh during the shooting.

McHugh is charged with murder, aggravated robbery and recklessly discharging a firearm. He also faces associated charges of conspiring to pervert justice and using a document to obtain a monetary advantage - the Crown alleging that while on remand, he offered a fellow inmate a financial inducement (partly from an insurance payout), to confess.

Further alternative charges of wounding with intent to do injury or with intent to do grievous bodily harm related to an incident 11 months earlier, which the Crown was allowed to introduce at trial as evidence of McHugh having propensity for violence with a firearm.

Mr Fairbrother outlined three reasons why the Crown had failed to prove its case against his client.

First, there was nothing to suggest she was involved in any kind of planning. The charges against her began only with the accusation she had driven McHugh to the house where the robbery occurred.

The incident at Kowhai Street, whoever committed it, was not premeditated. McHugh had only retrieved his gun, the firearm used for the killing, an hour or two earlier, Mr Fairbrother said.

Second, there was no forensic evidence linking his client to a vehicle seen outside the Kowhai Street house, Mr Fairbrother said. The only female DNA found in the car was that of an unknown female.

Third, his client was arrested and charged only after two witnesses, both of whom had substantial criminal backgrounds, had implicated her later in the inquiry. Each of those men had personally gained reduced court sentences from "co-operating" with police. Their evidence was not credible or reliable.

His client had no previous criminal convictions, Mr Fairbrother said. Jurors needed to be sure before finding her guilty and relegating her to the ranks of the criminal community.

At the time of Mr Witeri's murder, she was mixing with some bad company but that did not make her a criminal, Mr Fairbrother said.

"We all form associations that we, with hindsight, think were unwise or bad.