Supreme Court Youth Found Guilty Of Wounding With... (Press, 27 April 1970)

In the Supreme Court on 27 April 1970, 18-year-old Michael John Hamilton was found guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Stanley William Duggan, a 41-year-old telephonist. The jury deliberated for one hour before reaching their verdict. Hamilton was acquitted of a separate charge of demanding with menaces related to an alleged theft of Duggan's gold watch, valued at $76. The incident occurred in the early hours of 26 December 1969, following a chance meeting between the two men on the street. According to the Crown's case, Hamilton attacked Duggan after allegedly demanding his watch. However, during the trial, Hamilton claimed that he had been provoked by Duggan’s homosexual suggestions and that Duggan had drawn a knife on him. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr W. S. Smith, dismissed Hamilton's account as a fabrication designed to discredit Duggan's character. He urged the jury to consider whether the claimed provocation could justify Hamilton's violent response. In his defence, Hamilton described how he and Duggan conversed following his invitation to Duggan's flat for a drink. He explained that while at the flat, Duggan had made suggestive comments and mentioned bisexuality, which made Hamilton uncomfortable. Eventually, Hamilton claimed that he noticed Duggan holding a knife and feeling threatened, subsequently grabbing the knife from Duggan, which resulted in a cut to his hand. In the ensuing struggle, Hamilton admitted to hitting Duggan several times after feeling the need to "get the obstacle" out of his way. During cross-examination, Hamilton maintained that he had no intention to injure Duggan and denied any demands for his watch or clothes. His lawyer, Mr M. G. L. Loughnan, argued that Hamilton was merely defending himself against an aggressive advance from Duggan, a man much older than him. Loughnan further claimed that the evidence presented by the Crown witnesses supported Hamilton's version of events. In the judge's summation to the jury, he highlighted that a defence of self-defence requires a genuine belief of imminent danger and that Hamilton's excessive force after disarming Duggan raised questions about the necessity of his actions. The judge emphasised that the law requires the force used by an accused to be proportionate to that which is threatened. Hamilton was remanded for sentencing, scheduled for 1 May 1970. The case highlights the complexities of self-defence claims and the varying interpretations of provocation in cases of violent altercation.

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