Paparua Officer: Jorgensen Well Behaved In Prison (Press, 8 October 1982)

During the trial of Ronald John Jorgensen, held at a District Court, Chief Officer Keith Chase testified that Jorgensen was not inclined towards violence. Jorgensen, a 50-year-old artist, faced assault charges against Charles William Richard Hands, a 66-year-old retired advertising executive, stemming from an incident in Kaikoura on 26 May 1982. This fight occurred just 23 days after Jorgensen's release from prison, where he had served a life sentence for involvement in the infamous Bassett Road Machine-Gun Murder in Auckland in 1963. Jorgensen entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution called 10 witnesses, while the defence presented five, including Jorgensen himself. The trial saw a jury composed of eight women and four men retire to deliberate the case's verdict on its third day. Chief Officer Chase, who had known Jorgensen since 1972, spoke highly of his behaviour in prison, labelling him as an excellent worker and asserting he was not violent. Jorgensen was cross-examined by Crown prosecutor N. W. Williamson, where he admitted to having struck Hands with what he referred to as “open-handed slaps" in response to being assaulted first. Despite being questioned about the suitability of fighting the elderly Hands, who had an artificial hip, Jorgensen claimed he was unaware of Hands' condition. There was a suggestion from Williamson that Jorgensen's recounting of Hands making a homosexual advance was an attempt to tarnish Hands’ reputation. Jorgensen defended himself by stating he was merely sharing the facts of the incident. The court also heard from Dr. G. A. Shanks, a prison medical officer, who examined Jorgensen after his return to prison on 4 June 1982, nine days after the incident. Dr. Shanks described Jorgensen as physically fit with no signs of injuries on his hands or knuckles that would be evident after a fight. Instead, he attributed the injuries sustained by Hands to falling against a refrigerator while intoxicated. Dr. Shanks expressed doubts about the extent of the injuries, suggesting the severity was more related to Hands' drunken falls than to Jorgensen's actions. In a notable cross-examination, Dr. Shanks maintained the position that the damning evidence against Jorgensen tapped into the effects of Hands’ inebriation rather than being a result of an assault. He reinforced the notion that Hands’ state at the time led to more injuries than what Jorgensen could have inflicted. As the trial continued, the identity of a final defence witness was suppressed to shield her business interests. Her testimony was brief and related to historical gifts she had given Jorgensen long ago. The trial's developments hinted at a case where intoxication, personal conflict, and differing accounts of events may play significant roles in determining the outcome, ultimately placing Jorgensen's claims of self-defence at the centre of jury considerations.

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