Kawhia shooting: Hamilton jury begin their deliberations over accused's fate

Orren Scott Williams in the High Court at Hamilton. Photo / Belinda Feek

A jury has now started its deliberations about whether a Kawhia man was acting in self defence when he fired at least eight shots at four men, killing one, when they smashed their way into his rural home in the dead of night.

Orren Scott Williams, 38, has been on trial in the High Court at Hamilton for the past two weeks defending one charge of murder and three of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after the incident at his Harbour Rd home on June 6, last year.

Faalili Moleli Fauatea, 23, died after being shot in the back while Shaun Te Kanawa, Grayson Toilolo and Joe Tumaialu all received gunshot wounds.

Crown prosecutor Jacinda Hamilton and defence counsel Philip Morgan, QC, delivered their closing submissions last week.

This morning, Justice Mary Peters delivered her summing up before sending the jury off to begin their deliberations at 10.50am.

She began by reminding them there was no dispute that Williams had fired the shots and fatally injured Fauatea and wounding the three others.

The Toyota Harrier with its rear windscreen which was blown out by gunshots fired by Orren Williams. Photo / File

She said it wasn't up to Williams to prove his innocence, the Crown brought the charges so they had the burden of proof.

The Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self-defence at the time he fired the shots at the group of men.

If they were unsure, they could find Williams not guilty.

In finding him guilty, they then need to decide Williams' state of mind at the time.

When taking into account the evidence, she told the jury that they didn't have to take into account everything a certain witness said if it didn't make sense or they didn't believe it was reliable.

It was up to them to decide which witnesses were credible and reliable which were two different things.

Credibility was whether a witness was honest and sincere in their evidence, someone who was doing their best to tell it how they remembered it.

Reliability was different; a person could be honest and sincere but simply wrong in some things they said.

"We forget things and our memories are not perfect and our memories do not improve over time, they deteriorate."

If they believed Williams' evidence or it seemed a "reasonable possibility" that it happened that way, then they could find him not guilty.

If unsure, they needed to take the position "most favourably to Mr Williams based on the evidence".

Drawing inferences from the witnesses and the evidence was also another important issue.

Orren Williams' Toyota Hilux parked north of Hauturu School after he was pulled over by police when spotted driving through the scene. Photo / File

She used an example of that during her stay at the Novotel Hotel in Hamilton the past couple of weeks.

She got into a lift one morning and saw a man she thought was Richie Mounga.

"The next morning I got into the lift and saw Jack Goodhue and Dane Coles ... then I got out of the lift and saw Sam Cane and Sam Whitelock."

She then saw the team bus and from that, she was able to draw a conclusion that the All Blacks were also staying at the hotel.

"Five All Blacks and the team bus got me over the line."

So, she told the jury, before they made a decision based on inferences they needed to ensure they had plenty of evidence to back that inference up.

As they assessed the issue of self-defence, the jury had to put themselves in Williams' shoes and how he honestly believed what was happening at the time.

If they found him guilty, the force would be "excessive, not reasonable."

Beyond reasonable doubt was being left with an honest and reasonable uncertainty in their mind after having considered all of the evidence fairly.

To find him guilty of murder or manslaughter, the jury needed to accept one of two scenarios put to them by the crown as to his state of mind.

They were that he intended to kill Fauatea. Williams didn't need to have planned it or thought about it, it was only his intention at the time he pulled the trigger.

If they were unsure that he intended to kill him, then there was the alternative charge of manslaughter.

As for the wounding charges, the also had to be sure of Williams' intention.

The Crown had submitted that grievous bodily harm is a no-brainer when someone fires a high powered firearm towards people and a car.

Defence counsel Philip Morgan submitted that his client was in a panic and thought he was under threat and that the men were coming back for him, especially, as his client had told the jury, that he returned after re-loading to find the vehicle pointing up the driveway, with its headlights on.

Justice Peters also drew their attention to how Toilolo was shot; sitting in the driver's seat with the bullet going through the rear windscreen, then the rear passenger seat then his seat before puncturing him in the back.

Hamilton had said that Williams had let loose a volley of shots, so the fact he got shot where he did was no surprise.

Whereas Morgan had reiterated that his client was in a panic and felt under threat.

The jury was sent off to begin their deliberations at 10.50am.

* Shaun Te Kanawa, Grayson Toilolo and Joe Tumaialu were all charged with aggravated burglary for their part in the incident. Te Kanawa and Tumaialu have been sentenced, however Toilolo's case is still before the court. Emma Salvation received a sentence of 12 months' home detention for her part in planning the burglary.