Michael Murray. Photo / Jason Oxenham
During closings the accused Michael Thrift Murray sat still in the dock. His sister was in the public gallery to support him. It was the first time she had been in the courtroom.
Mr Morris' parents and sister left the room during Ms Dyhrberg's closing.
Tomorrow Justice Edwin Wylie will sum up the case and send the jury to deliberate. The trial has been adjourned for today and the jury warned not to read any media about the case during the break.
Here is what each side said in court today.
The lawyer for the man accused of murdering Connor Morris has refuted evidence given by Head Hunters gang members and associates during the trial, describing their testimony as nonsense and "carefully scripted" to mislead the jury.
While the Crown told the jury to disregard much of the evidence and focus on the moment Michael Thrift Murray swung a sickle at Mr Morris, defence lawyer Marie Dyhrberg QC said the information was crucial.
Ms Dyhrberg said when the Crown opened its case on the first day of the trial it may have seemed straight forward.
But she said the evidence did not reflect her client murdering Mr Morris.
She said issue such as weapons being used in the fight were extremely relevant to the case.
"You can't look at the point of impact in isolation in this case because what has gone on before that point formed the fear and assessment made in Michael Murray's mind at the point of impact," Ms Dyhrberg told the jury.
"You cannot ignore that and be fair. The defense says Michael Murray is not guilty of murder."
Ms Dyhrberg spoke at length about Murray lying to police, but said jurors had to be very careful with any belief that because he lied in his formal interview, he lied on the stand.
"He was frank... he didn't try and fluff it all around or gild the lily... He told you about what he saw up on Don Buck Rd."
She said Murray did not want any trouble on the night of the fight. After the initial altercation on Don Buck Rd occurred between his group and Mr Morris' mates he "tried to smooth it all over".
"He was told he had 'f**ked with the wrong people' - the 88s, the Head Hunters. What was the response? A wave of men, large men dressed in black and angry.
"Michael Murray described what was happening... when he made that split second decision to go and get the sickle. He knew it was there because he had used it for cutting grass. He told you at that point her had seen Shamus Wira (his cousin) being badly assaulted by a group of these men - these large angry men. Shamus was the toughest in their group... it would seem that he certainly wasn't coping with this response.
"He told you that he thought, and naively, thought that he could scare these men and stop them from their attack. That is very important. When he returned with the sickle he couldn't see Mr Wira. Instead he saw to his left, his brother Stanley step forward and say he didn't want any trouble."
Mr Morris then assaulted Murray's brother.
"What happened next happened in a matter of seconds, and in panic... Mr Murray said 'stop, that's my brother'. But this plea was ignored. It looked to Mr Murray that the man was going to continue to smash Stanley and the law allows preventive action.
"Michael Murray, in law, did not have to wait for his brother to be smashed or seriously injured, maybe fatally, before the law says he could take some preventive action for him. He had genuine fears for the safety of his brother - and so he swung the sickle, which struck Connor Morris."
Ms Dyhrberg said Murray did not know where the sickle had hit.
"Unfortunately that one strike... proved fatal and so we have a homicide."
Murray was regretful about his actions and had a "heavy burden".
"Michael Murray remains distruahgt about what happened," Ms Dyhrberg said.
She then explained why he lied to police in his interview, and assured the jury that his testimony in court was truthful "He was petrified, he did not want to put himself or his family in the sights of the Head Hunters. He knew what that gang was capable of," she said.
"What he has told you in evidence actually does make sense. It is consistent with other evidence... not just defence evidence."
Ms Dyhrberg then launched into an attack on the Crown's witnesses - particularly those associated with Mr Morris and the Head Hunters.
She said the evidence had been "carefully scripted" and was "nowhere near the reality of this case".
"What they would want you to believe was the other side, they were the aggressors. Really?
"The Crown called five Head Hunters associates as witnesses... and whilst they attempted to removed themselves from the scene each of those witnesses unwittingly let their guard down on some occasions allowing you to see a glimpse of the truth."
She described evidence from witnesses Obe Porter, John Akavai, Josh Faengai and Millie Elder-Holmes as a "mantra" and "blueprint".
She said Mr Porter "tried to remove himself from anything and everything" and was "pointing the finger" at those in Murray's group during the fight.
His evidence was "misleading spin", Ms Dyhrberg suggested.
She continued to pick apart the testimony of Crown witnesses, aside from security guard Matthew Brown, who told the jury last week that he chanced upon the fight and saw a large group of men fighting with sticks and baseball bats.
She said his evidence was the backdrop to the case - and hugely significant as he was an independent witness.
Witnesses had misrepresented what they saw, including the number of people involved in the fight and the aggression of Mr Morris' group. Some of the evidence was simply "nonsense" said Ms Dhyrberg.
She branded another witnesses evidence as "an attempt to deceive you" because they knew what Murray was confronted with on the street when he ran off to get a weapon.
"Waves of men, in black, angry. Head Hunter associates including cm bent in retaliation for the actions of a silly 17-year-old... (Murray's) group were totally overwhelmed in terms of numbers, size and verocity."
Ms Elder-Holmes evidence was also slammed. A video she took that night showed Mr Morris give her the finger and say "f**k you" twice. She told the court that this was him teasing her.
Ms Dyhrberg said no, that was the real Connor Morris.
"The Connor Morris of that night... not the carefully-managed image you're used to seeing of him in the media. The Connor Morris of that night that confronted Michael Murray - that is the Connor Morris you have to be interested in.
"Ms Elder-Holmes' evidence is very interesting and important, about how she describes Connor Morris as a fighter - a professionally trained kickboxer. He was strong. Her evidence simply emphasises... an almost robotic power.
"This is the person who had Stan Murray on the ground when Michael Murray mad the decision to swing that sickle."
Ms Dyhrberg said gang members were described as uncooperative and belligerent when police arrived at the scene of the fatal fight.
"When you're dealing with gang members they will tell you as much as they want... and that's exactly what they have done. They have told you as little as they wanted to and they have not told you the full story that the independent witnesses have seen."
Ms Dyhrberg then turned to her own case.
Her witnesses did not attempt to mislead the jury, they told the truth even though they were "well terrified" of speaking out against the Head Hunters.
She reiterated that Murray and his group did not want any trouble the night of Mr Morris's death. That a stupid kick from an "immature" teenager to one of Mr Morris' friends sparked a brutal brawl that Murray never wanted to be part of.
But when he saw his brother being "smashed" he had no choice.
Her witness Bodhi Young, a friend of Murray's brother, gave evidence that "seriously damaged the Crown case". He initially lied to police during the investigation, but in court gave clear and honest testimony about seeing Murray hit Mr Morris and what happened in the moments before.
Ms Dyhrberg said Mr Young had "nothing to gain" by giving evidence and his account had a "ring of truth" to it.
"So where to from here? The charge. Did (Murray) cause the death of Connor Morris? Yes he did. But is he culpable? That is, is he guilty in law?
"If self defence is not considered an unlawful action when he struck Connor Morris in these circumstances, he is not guilty. You've heard the test already - you look at the circumstances as Mr Murray believed them to be, from his point of view.
"Was he acting in self defence of (his brother)? Yes he was. He didn't swing that sickle for no reason. Was the force reasonable? The defence says yes.
"There were no other realistic options available at the time.... And remember before that swing, a plea - 'leave my brother alone'. He aimed in the vicinity of Mr Morris, he did not appreciate the harm (the sickle) could cause.
"The law allows in these circumstances people to intervene. They have protection. And if you step away from self defence... you still have to consider manslaughter. Mr Murray never intended to kill Mr Morris and he didn't mean to cause bodily injury that he knew to be a likely cause of death.
"I wish to finish with these words ab ringing in your ears. Michael Thrift Murray is presumed innocent. You cannot convict him unless you are sure and confident on the evidence you've heard and in accordance with the law that he is guilty and the defence says the just and proper verdict for him is not guilty."
The Crown has delivered a short closing argument to the jury in the Connor Morris murder trial in the High Court at Auckland today.
Michael Thrift Murray, 34, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Mr Morris during a street fight on Don Buck Rd in Massey last year.
He admits striking the 26-year-old with a sickle but claims he was defending his brother from an assault and there was no murderous intent.
It took Crown prosecutor David Johnstone just an hour to summarise his case.
"Members of the jury it's trite but I'm going to say it. You've heard the expression about not taking a knife to a fist fight," he said.
"Even if you believe Michael Murray... he still left what he saw was a fist fight to go and get not just a knife but a deadly item."
Mr Johnstone conceded that it was likely Murray saw Mr Morris assaulting his younger brother during the street brawl on 3 August last year.
"In allowing for that possibility (Murray) thought a large man with his bare hands was assaulting his brother. Not only did Mr Murray use a sickle against that man, he directed the blow so the point of the sickle entered that man's head... with enough force to break the skull.
"By taking this action Michael Murray was not defending anyone. He'd gone beyond the realm of what could properly be described as defence - he was attacking.
"He used a degree of plainly lethal force. It was beyond the realm of what would be reasonable. In taking that action Michael Murray must have wither intended to kill Mr Morris or he must have intended to hurt in him a way that he knew could quite possibly cause death.
"I'm going to invite you to find Michael Murray guilty as charged."
Mr Johnstone said there was no question that Murray went into the night looking for "an opportunity to undertake some kind of violence".
"We wish these events hadn't happened. But matters like the ones we are dealing with develop quickly... the way our society and in particular our justice system can respond to the sort of situation we're dealing with in this case to invite people like you to consider these events and make a judgement.
"It wouldn't be right for you to simply look at the melee on the street, the inappropriate and excessive behaviour shown by a number of people, and simply throw your hands up.
It is your heavy responsibility to make a judgement about the moments when Michael Murray chose to swing the sickle.
"Everyone agrees that Mr Murray killed Connor Morris and it will soon be up to you to decide whether he may have been acting unreasonably and whether he intended to hurt Mr Morris in a way that was likely to cause death."
Mr Johnstone said some of the information that the jury heard during evidence could be disregarded. Their job was to decide what Murray was thinking at the time he killed Mr Morris - and much of the evidence they heard during the trial was about the lead up to the alleged murder and the aftermath.
He said jurors should ignore evidence about other weapons being used in the street fight. In his testimony Murray said he did not see anyone else using a weapon and that was the only thing jurors needed to consider. Whether others involved in the fight were armed or not was irrelevant as the accused himself did not witness anyone else using a weapon before he retrieved the sickle.
The jury should also disregard significant evidence given about the Head Hunters gang. Mr Morris was a member, as is his father. A number of other members were involved in the street fight and evidence was given about their reaction to Mr Morris death.
"When there was so much of the questioning about the involvement and conduct of the Head Hunters gang and their associates after Mr Morris had been killed. Things like whether the father of the man who had just died drove through a police cordon to get to his daughter's house is of no consequence in the determination of this case.
He said the reaction by gang members to Mr Morris death could certainly explain why Murray lied to police about his involvement - but could not be considered when deciding what his intent was.
Mr Johnstone said the jury should consider the lies told by Murray to police and the fact that there were discrepancies between his evidence and the other defence witnesses.
"None of those three witnesses can be regarded of having any particular reliability... all three admitted that they lied to police about it," he said.
"You can't particularly trust Mr Murray's evidence."
"The question is what was in Mr Murray's mind at the moment in which he literally took matters into his own hands... the most important part of the evidence is what Mr Murray actually did."
Mr Johnstone said Murray had numerous opportunities to take alternative action. He could have run away with his brother, he could have taken Mr Morris on with his own fists. But he chose a weapon, one he knew was capable of causing significant damage. And he swung it with force."
'It’s a great initiative', young Hawke's Bay entrepreneur backed by Rod Drury.