KEY POINTS:
Jurors have had two contrasting pictures painted of murder accused Antonie Dixon in the past two days as his trial moves to a conclusion.
On Monday, prosecutors told the jury in the High Court at Auckland that Dixon was a violent man with a P habit who was
claiming he was insane to avoid imprisonment for murder.
Yesterday, Dixon's lawyer said his client was insane but that his shooting of James Te Aute happened either in self-defence or under provocation - views which if accepted by jurors mean they don't need to consider the question of sanity.
Both sides were summing up their cases after a five-week trial hearing the eight charges Dixon faces, including murder and grievous bodily harm.
The charges relate to incidents in January 2003 including the fatal shooting of Mr Te Aute in East Auckland and a samurai sword attack on Renee Gunbie and Simonne Butler at Pipiroa, near Thames.
Dixon was found guilty in 2005 of eight charges but the Court of Appeal later ordered a second trial, suppressing its reasons for quashing the original verdicts.
On Monday, Crown Solicitor Simon Moore argued Dixon lured Mr Te Aute, and a colleague, towards his car and then shot him in the back with a machine gun as he tried to run away.
Yesterday, defence lawyer Barry Hart presented a different argument to the jury, saying Dixon did not have murder in his heart when he pulled up alongside Mr Te Aute.
He said Dixon had thought Mr Te Aute approached his car in a threatening manner and that he shot him in self-defence as he thought he was about to be "wasted".
Mr Hart contested the Crown's argument that Mr Te Aute was holding a methamphetamine or P pipe behind his back, saying it was in fact a weapon of some sort, such as a gun or a crowbar.
He said Mr Te Aute and his colleague had a string of convictions, including firearms and grievous bodily harm charges, and the survivors who gave evidence at the trial could not be believed.
Mr Hart said there was a clear case for a defence of provocation if the jury found Dixon did not act in self-defence.
Dixon is also using a defence of insanity, but Mr Hart said the jury didn't have to consider it if it felt the Crown hadn't proven the essential elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
If jurors did, it was up to the defence to prove it was probable Dixon was insane, and Mr Hart said enough evidence was presented at the trial to suggest he was.
Mr Moore said the psychiatrists who gave evidence at the trial, including those who testified on Dixon's behalf, had not done enough to show it was probable he had a disease of the mind.
All said that his severe personality disorder and his use of methamphetamine made an assessment of his state of mind complicated.
Mr Moore also said that all the psychiatrists found that Dixon had feigned some symptoms.
Mr Moore argued it was difficult to accept the self-defence argument. He said Mr Te Aute was shot 10 times in the back while trying to get away from Dixon.
The jury will retire after Justice Hugh Williams sums up.
- NZPA
