Mon 22 Jun 2009 In: New Zealand Daily News View at Wayback View at NDHA
Ambach trial Day 1 3.00PM: The prosecution in the trial of Ferdinand Ambach for the murder of elderly gay Onehunga man Ronald Brown has outlined its case, drawing heavily on evidence provided by neighbours and police, while the defence has raised the possibility of the death having arisen from provocation. Ronald Brown In their opening statement, prosecution lawyers said in the Auckland High Court today that Brown, 69, was gay, although this was unknown to even his closest friends and family. He worked as a sales rep for a metal products company and has been described by friends and associates as a gentle, well-spoken "people person" with a sense of humour. He liked a beer, the prosecution says, but was a happy, not an angry, drunk who was a regular at Onehunga's 306 Bar. Brown and the man accused of his murder, 32-year old Hungarian tourist Ferdinand Ambach, met at the 306 Bar on the evening of December 7, 2007, the prosecution says. The accused, who had been in New Zealand one month, was wearing a sleeveless top "which showed off his arms." He spoke with bar staff in broken english and seemed to be in good spirits. The pair left the bar together at 9.15pm. A short time later they entered a liquor store and purchased six cans of Victoria Bitter and some Coke before taking a taxi to Brown's home, a small two bedroom unit in Mariere Road. There was no one else present at the home. At around 11.30, the prosecution told the jury, a near neighbour went into his spare room which looked onto the rear of Brown's unit. He heard talking and saw Brown holding a glass. Fifteen minutes later another neighbour was woken by a loud bang and says he saw the accused holding something, "perhaps a brick." The neighbour shouted out to Ambach who shouted back "Fuck off!" The neighbour says in his affidavit that he called Brown, asking if he should phone the police. Brown said "The prick has broken the door in," hesitated for a moment then said "Yes, call the police." THE DISTURBANCE ESCALATES The prosecution says the neighbours then heard shouting, crashing and banging. They tried to phone Brown but his phone was engaged. Moments later they saw the accused throwing items out of the house and heard glass breaking. Two police officers arrived in a patrol car but couldn't see or hear any signs of the disturbance and left to do another job. But at 1am they returned and heard glass breaking and a loud male voice. Ambach was upstairs and the police saw him push a double bed out a window. The officers stepped over shattered glass from the broken door and saw Brown slumped unconscious on the stairs. Books and other objects had been thrown on top of him and there were gashes on his face, blood spattered on the wall and more blood pooling on the carpet. The prosecutors allege that analysis of evidence shows Brown had been hit a number of times, including with a banjo which had broken. The broken neck of the banjo allegedly had been repeatedly rammed down Brown's throat. An ambulance was called. Meanwhile, the accused remained upstairs, agitated and splattering blood from a cut finger. He was eventually restrained and arrested. Brown was given first aid and transferred to Auckland Hospital where he was put on life support and underwent two emergency operations for blood clots. He died two days later. MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER The crown prosecutor told the jury that they must identify three things in the case to give a finding of murder: that a homicide occurred, that it was a blameworthy homicide, and whether the accused had murderous intent. In the opening statement for the defence the jury was told that defence lawyers can't explore the particulars of the case yet until the prosecution provides more details in court. However, the jury was advised that there are four important areas they must concentrate on during the crown's presentation of evidence. Firstly, that there was a homicide, "the killing of a human being either directly or indirectly," which the defence said they had little issue with. Secondly, that the homicide resulted from an activity that was intended or voluntary. "Sometimes we can act involuntarily," said defence lawyer Peter Kaye. He gave as an example the spiking of drinks with drugs leading to an action without conscious decision. This, he said, would lead to a verdict of manslaughter, not murder. Kaye said the third thing the jury should consider was whether the accused meant to cause the death. If not, manslaughter should be the verdict. And, lastly, he asked the jury to think about provocation and the idea of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control "where the person is not the master of their own mind." This too, he said, would downgrade a verdict from murder to manslaughter. PROVOCATION AND FEAR Exploring the concept of provocation resulting from something said or done, Kaye said the jury members must consider how an ordinary New Zealander, faced with that provocation, might react. He said that in a police interview Ambach claimed that he went to Brown's home to practise his english, that he was very drunk, and that Brown made an advance, touched his thigh and moved his hand over the accused's groin. Ambach said in the interview that he was afraid and wanted to leave the house but couldn't find an exit and had no money. He said he thought of jumping the fence but knew that a drunk man jumping a fence would seem suspicious. He says Brown went upstairs and turned down the lights then called to him. He claims little memory of what followed except being chased around a table and later throwing things at Brown. The jury will this afternoon tour by bus the scenes associated with the case and the court heard that some evidence in the three weeks of the trial will be presented by video link from Hungary. The prosecution intends to call 65 witnesses.
Credit: GayNZ.com Daily News staff
First published: Monday, 22nd June 2009 - 1:39pm