Supreme Court Jury Hears Addresses In Trial Of Six... (Press, 9 May 1964)

On 9 May 1964, the Supreme Court concluded the addresses by counsel in the trial of six youths charged with the manslaughter of Charles Arthur Allan Aberhart, who was assaulted in Hagley Park on 23 January. The jury, under Mr Justice Macarthur, is set to receive the judge's summation on the following Monday. The accused, aged between 15 and 17, include Anthony Dennis O'Connor (16), Brian Francis Johns (17), Raymond Clive Neither (17), Zane Leslie McDonald (15), Frank Leicester Reynolds (16), and Roger Malcolm Williams (17). The Crown, represented by Mr C. M. Roper and Mr L. C. J. Polson, contends that Aberhart's death resulted from a concerted effort by the accused to seek out and assault him. In his remarks, Mr Roper emphatically stated that Aberhart died due to the assault, asserting that the youth sought Aberhart, whom they deemed a “queer.” He highlighted that O'Connor admitted to wanting to beat up a gay man, and he categorised the actions of the youths as a "joint venture." Roper cited the verbal admissions made by Neither and noted that both Williams and Neither had directly assaulted Aberhart, while Reynolds was involved in leading Aberhart towards the others for the attack. Roper described the events as a "sordid story," emphasising that Aberhart, despite his alleged shortcomings, had the right to live. Defence counsel offered counterarguments. Mr Drake, representing Williams, argued that the evidence should be scrutinised individually for each defendant, asserting that Williams had disclosed details of the night and left before the fatal incident. Mr Penlington for Reynolds declared that mere presence at the crime scene didn't equate to guilt and suggested a larger individual would need to have delivered the lethal blow. Other defence lawyers argued that the evidence against their clients was either non-existent or insufficient for a manslaughter charge. Mr Brockett, representing Johns, insisted that there was no substantial proof of active participation in the assault. Each defence counsel stressed the importance of individual behaviours and intentions, suggesting that the Crown's case lacked clarity and that no distinct act of manslaughter could be solely attributed to any one of the youths. As the court awaits the summation from Justice Macarthur, the case has highlighted deep questions about youth culpability, societal prejudice, and the nature of mob mentality in acts of violence.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand