Connor Morris trial: Judge tells jury 'it is up to you'

Michael Murray. Photo / Jason Oxenham

The jury in the Connor Morris murder trial has now been out for three hours.

So far they have not indicated that they need advice or have any questions.

If a verdict has not been returned by 5pm today they will be sent home for the weekend and return on Monday.

Members of Mr Morris' family are waiting at the High Court, anxious to hear the jury's decision.

Justice Edwin Wylie finished summing up earlier this afternoon and sent the jury to deliberate whether the man accused of murdering Connor Morris is guilty.

The jury of eight men and four women has spent two weeks listening to evidence from the Crown and Defence about the night Mr Morris, 26, died.

Mr Morris was hit on the head with a sickle-like tool during a street fight on Don Buck Drive in Massey on August 3 last year.

Michael Thrift Murray, 34, is charged with his murder.

Murray has admitted killing Mr Morris, but claims when he swung the weapon he was simply trying to stop an assault on his younger brother Stanley Popata-Murray.

Murray said he feared for his brother's life and did not intend to kill or even hurt Mr Morris.

This morning Justice Wylie gave a five-part address to the jury, the "finders of fact".

It was their "sole responsibility" to determine whether Murray was guilty of the charge, he said. If not, they could find him guilty of an alternative charge of manslaughter.

If they determined he had acted in self defence and had done so within the law - he was not criminally culpable and they must find him not guilty.

He said: "Bear in mind that murderous intent does not require any premeditation or planning it can be unplanned, impulsive and instantly regretted."

Justice Wylie ran through the Crown and Defence case, summarising the key points. He also gave a brief overview of the evidence given by each witness.

Mr Morris' parents and sister were in court, supported by other family and friends. They have attended every day of the trial.

Also in court were two of Murray's cousins, and several supporters.

SELF DEFENCE AND REASONABLE DOUBT

The jury was advised on self defence and defence of another as a defence to a murder charge.

Justice Wylie explained that under the Crimes Act "everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

"It is up to you what evidence you will accept or reject or what weight you will give it," he told the jury.

"The onus of proof lies on the Crown. Your starting point is the presumption of innocence - you must treat Michael Murray as innocent of the charge until you are satisfied that the Crown has proven him to be guilty.

"The Crown must prove each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have to meet. It is not enough that Michael Murray is 'probably' guilty or 'likely' guilty."

Though Murray gave and called evidence, he did not have to, Justice Wylie said. It did not change the onus of proof.

"The question remains the same - has the Crown proved Mr Murray's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?"

Justice Wylie advised the jury on the criteria of a reasonable doubt.

"Reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable question left in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration of the evidence," he said.

A doubt could not be "vague or fanciful" or a case of the jury finding it too hard and unpleasant to convict Murray of murder.

"On the other hand if you are not sure that he is guilty you must find him not guilty," Justice Wylie said.

The jury was told to come to a verdict "solely on the evidence put before you in this court". They were to forget anything they had read about the case before the trial and anything they had heard from others.

VERDICT OPTIONS

Jurors were given a transcript of the entire trial and would have access to the alleged murder weapon if they needed it.

Justice Wylie explained the charge and what the jury needed to establish for a verdict.

Simply put - if the jury determined Murray intended to cause Mr Morris' death, they should find him guilty of murder. Likewise, if they determined he meant to cause injury knowing it was likely to cause death, that too was murder as there was intent at the time of impact.

He added that murderous intent did not need premeditation - it could be instant and immediately regretted.

If Murray had killed Mr Morris unintentionally but the jury did not believe it was in defence of himself or another, he was guilty of manslaughter.

And, if they were satisfied he was acting in defence of his brother and did so with reasonable force - he should be acquitted.

"You must not speculate or guess... it must be a reasoned and logical conclusion," Justice Wylie said.

"You must be sure on the evidence... You must also consider what counsel have said about evidence in their addresses. Counsel submissions are not evidence, only comment on evidence.

"You do not have to accept everything a witness said, you may think part of what somebody said is credible and reliable; you may have doubts about some other parts."

Justice Wylie directed the jury to ignore what was said about Murray's character.

"Rather you must assess whether the evidence proves his guilt."

"Frequently, feelings of sympathy or prejudice can be aroused in criminal trials - you must ignore these feelings... This is particularly important in this case... with gang overtones in the background.

"You may feel some sympathy towards Mr Morris or Mr Murray. All such emotions, feelings or views must play no part in your deliberations."

Justice Wylie said those deliberations had to be fair, calm and dispassionate.