This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Robbery In Toilets Denied (Press, 11 December 1981)
On 11 December 1981, the High Court heard the case involving two men accused of assaulting and robbing Murray James Ward. The incident occurred on 29 November, when Ward was attacked in the toilets of the Manchester Street car park after playing darts at a hotel. Barry Gordon, 23, a barman, and Gary McQuillan, 26, a painter, both pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery involving the theft of $21 and Ward's clothing. Gordon faced an additional charge of robbery while armed with a belt. Crown prosecutor C.B. Atkinson outlined the events leading to the attack, stating that Ward, who is a labourer, was approached in the toilet by two men who questioned his sexual orientation. After he denied being homosexual, he was physically assaulted. One of the attackers held him down, while another used a belt as a weapon, wrapping it around Ward's throat and causing him to lose consciousness. During the assault, Ward managed to hand over the money he had in his possession. A passerby noticed Ward emerging from the toilets in a state of distress and took him to the hospital. On the defence side, no evidence was presented by the defendants. In his closing arguments, Gordon's lawyer, M.J. Knowles, highlighted inconsistencies in the Crown's case and argued that there was no concrete evidence tying Gordon to the attack. He insisted that the police had made a mistake in identifying Gordon as the attacker and that the prosecution had failed to meet the burden of proof. Similarly, McQuillan's defence, presented by G.E. Langham, emphasised the lack of evidence linking him to the assault. They pointed out that Ward could not identify either of his attackers, rendering the evidence presented by the Crown unreliable due to its inconsistencies and “loopholes.” Langham asserted that the only logical verdict could be an acquittal for McQuillan. The judge, Mr Justice Roper, planned to sum up the case the following morning, leaving the jury to deliberate on the evidence and the charges against the two men.
Important Information
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