Tetraplegic didn't want to die, court hears

Keith McCormick (pictured) died in July 2005. Photo / Supplied

A tetraplegic whose throat was cut as he watched television did not agree with his killer that he wanted to die, a court has heard.

Former Paralympian Keith McCormick, 56, died after his throat was slashed and he was stabbed six times in the side of the neck by his part-time carer, Eric Neil Smail.

Smail, 53, is on trial in the High Court in Christchurch for murder, but says he is only guilty of manslaughter. His defence will be that he was provoked.

Crown prosecutor Barnaby Hawes told the court today that Smail, who cared for Mr McCormick at nights at his Christchurch home, had been drinking and told friends and acquaintances prior to the killing on July 28, 2005 that he was going to kill him.

However these people did not think he was serious.

Smail took a knife from the kitchen in Mr McCormick's home to inflict the wounds, Mr Hawes said. After the killing, Smail phoned several people to tell them what he had done.

Mr McCormick had suffered numerous health problems aside from the two accidents which left him paralysed from the neck down. However he was a well-liked man with plans for the future.

"Despite his setbacks, he did not want his life to end and did not ask the accused (Smail) to take it from him," Mr Hawes said.

Euthanasia, or mercy killings, were illegal in New Zealand. But this killing could not be described as that.

"There was no agreement to end Mr McCormick's life."

After the killing, Smail was heard to make comments that he "should have done it years ago" and "I murdered my best friend", Mr Hawes said.

In the opening address by the defence, Smail's lawyer Judith Ablett-Kerr, QC, said this was one of the rare cases where the partial defence of provocation could reduce the culpability from murder to manslaughter.

She said Smail was physically sound but psychiatrically impaired when he killed his "best friend".

Mr McCormick's needs, demands and requirements put pressure on Smail that he could not cope with, Mrs Ablett-Kerr said.

"That he did so is no reflection on Keith McCormick," she said.

Justice Chisholm told the jury that although they might be aware that the defence of provocation had been removed from the statute books, that did not affect this case.

The trial is expected to last up to a month.