Man appeals fence post murder conviction

A Nelson man convicted of murdering his neighbour with a wooden fence post claims he was wrongly convicted because the judge made a mistake in directing the jury.

In the Court of Appeal in Wellington today Damian Harley MacDonald appealed his conviction for the murder of his 26-year-old neighbour Nicholas Winter, who died on his front lawn after being hit over the head with a wooden fence post in 2007.

Earlier this year MacDonald, 22, was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years in the High Court at Nelson.

At his trial MacDonald told the jury he had spent the afternoon drinking in a Nelson bar, where he had hit three people in the head.

Later that night, hearing a noise outside his flat and believing it was one of those men coming after him, MacDonald attacked Mr Winter, who lived in the flat above.

Mr Winter had gone outside to collect a television and was found lying dead with the television resting on his foot the next morning.

MacDonald was not present in court today but his lawyer, Donald Stevens QC, argued there was a miscarriage of justice because the judge did not give the jury appropriate direction when summing up in a case where the defendant had given evidence.

If the jury did not believe MacDonald's evidence it should not automatically believe he was guilty, Dr Stevens said.

There was a "natural human tendency" for people to assume guilt if they did not believe a person's evidence and they should have been given specific direction on that.

Juries were not trained to think judicially and a study of 48 district court cases showed 10 per cent of juries disregarded instructions and made their own, out-of-court inquiries, Dr Stevens said.

However, Justice Susan Glazebrook said research showed juries were very conscientious on the whole and although they might get it wrong some times they tried very hard to follow judges' directions.

Crown prosecutor Kerryn Beaton said giving such directions to the jury would have only confused them more.

The absence of those specific instructions did not mean the jury went down the wrong reasoning process, she said.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision.

- NZPA