Redford Kaea in the High Court at Rotorua. Photo / Andrew Warner
Redford Kaea in the High Court at Rotorua. Photo / Andrew Warner
Redford Kaea didn't say he was scared as hell, he said he was "mad as f***".
That distinction, the Crown says, is critical when considering whether Kaea is guilty of the manslaughter of his father-in-law during a fight at their Malfroy Rd flats last year.
Kaea, 26, is on trialin the High Court at Rotorua after pleading not guilty to the manslaughter of Michael John Anderson on February 1.
Anderson, 60, suffered severe head injuries and spent 13 days in the intensive care unit at Waikato Hospital before dying from blunt force trauma to his head.
Kaea admits physically fighting with Anderson but says he was acting in self-defence as his father-in-law was trying to stop him leaving the property.
The trial is before Justice Andru Isac and a jury.
Crown prosecutor Anna McConachy gave her closing arguments today, saying Anderson suffered a range of injuries including broken bones, brain bleeds and a punctured lung.
His cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head.
McConachy told the jury the force needed to inflict such injuries must have been substantial and therefore wasn't reasonable force, which was required if they were to believe he acted in self-defence.
She said it wasn't a fair fight as Kaea was twice the size and half the age.
She said while it might have started as a "full-on fight" and Anderson might have thrown the first punch, Kaea was stronger and bigger.
Redford Kaea is on trial for manslaughter. Photo / Andrew Warner
McConachy reminded the jury that neighbour Morgan Hamiora-Smith gave evidence he saw Kaea smash Anderson around with his fists. He also saw him get flipped backwards twice.
McConachy said Kaea said in his police interview that when he flipped Anderson backwards he was "mad as f***". He was mad because Anderson was holding on to his car as if trying to stop him leaving.
"He didn't say he was scared as hell. He said he was mad as f***."
McConachy said Anderson wasn't attacking Kaea while on the ground and police even asked Kaea in his interview if Anderson was trying to hurt Kaea before he picked him up and threw him and Kaea said "no".
Defence lawyer Bill Nabney said the jury needed to focus on one action and that was when Kaea picked up Anderson and threw him.
"No one saw him punch him. He threw him to the side because he was stopping him from leaving. In a case of a few seconds, he has picked him up and thrown him and unfortunately his head hit the concrete but it only happened once. We are talking about one action, one thing done by Kaea in the context of him being attacked."
Nabney said there was no evidence to suggest Kaea intended to do any harm.
"In hindsight, he did [do harm] but hindsight is a wonderful thing."
He reminded the jury of evidence from Kelly Purcell, who drove past the fight.
In his evidence, Purcell described the "attacker" as being a man of medium build with salt and pepper-coloured frizzy hair, which fitted the description of Anderson, not Kaea.
Justice Andru will sum up the case tomorrow before the jury retires to consider their verdict.
