Kickboxer's lawyers criticise witnesses

Lawyers for convicted killer Paul Takana Kingi say Crown witnesses colluded to give false evidence at the trial, which ended in the professional fighter receiving a two-and-a-half-year jail sentence for manslaughter.

At the Court of Appeal, sitting in Auckland yesterday, Bruce Squire, QC, and Peter Coles set out their reasons why the Dannevirke-based kickboxer and K1 fighter's conviction and sentence should be overturned and a new trial ordered.

Kingi was charged after he punched his uncle, Rangiwananga Kingi, in the head during a dispute over a bull. Mr Kingi senior died from head injuries received as a result of the January 6, 2004, attack.

Mr Squire told Justices Anthony Randerson, Lowell Goddard and Susan Glazebrook that witnesses Mark Ormsby and Reihana Kingi had colluded with another, Reiha Wharewhiti, then given false evidence from the witness box.

Mr Ormsby and Mr Kingi both said at the trial that they had seen -- from a bedroom window -- Kingi punch his uncle.

But evidence had emerged since the trial finished in early March of a family meeting where the men had said they had seen nothing of the incident.

They also told the court, at the trial, things they could not have known without having spoken to Ms Wharewhiti, Mr Squire said.

Kingi's counsel also claim to have new information that would put into question evidence given during the trial about the nature of the blow that felled Rangiwananga Kingi, and the way in which he hit the ground.

Mr Squire also took issue with several aspects of trial judge Justice Mackenzie's directions to the jury.

Justice Mackenzie had given the jury a definition of self-defence that was too abstract and not linked to the facts of the case, he said.

He had also misinterpreted the Crimes Act when he told jurors that Kingi was only allowed to use force to defend himself if he knew he was in danger of bodily harm.

The jury could easily have become confused or misguided as to with whom the burden of proof lay in proving Kingi's self-defence defence, Mr Squire said.

He also argued that the 30-month prison term handed down to Kingi was "inappropriate and excessive".

Crown counsel Barney Thomson said he did not dispute Kingi's challenging the length of sentence, but said there were not a great many mitigating factors in Kingi's defence at sentencing.

Mr Thomson also said claims of witness collusion -- even if the jury had seen the witnesses cross-examined on it -- would not necessarily have affected the verdict; neither did the claims, even if true, add much that was new evidence.

Kingi was not present at yesterday's hearing.

The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision.

- nzpa