Killer appeals his convictions

A man convicted of killing a woman, causing injuries akin to those suffered in a car crash, believes his trial was not fair because a key witness was not in court to speak.

That meant he was unable to properly question their account and show how it was different to another witness’ version of events, a court has heard.

The comments were made in the Court of Appeal in Auckland yesterday during Maui Phillip Downes’ appeal.

Downes is serving 12 years and 10 months in prison for killing a 30-year-old woman and seriously injuring another older woman.

The women, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were attacked between October 13 and 29, 2019.

People said they saw Downes assault the 30-year-old multiple times during a time he was using a variety of drugs.

He told people the woman choked on a large piece of food, but a postmortem discovered 70 injuries, including bleeding on the brain and injuries described as being similar to those of a car crash victim.

The other woman was assaulted repeatedly by Downes, including having a boiling cup of coffee poured over her and an attack so serious she suffered the consequences of a brain injury more than two years later.

Downes had previous convictions for assaulting her in 2016 and 2018.

Downes’ lawyer Steve Winter said the way the trial unfolded was ultimately unfair on Downes.

His trial started with a key witness, who said they witnessed

Downes is serving 12 years and 10 months in prison for killing a 30-year-old woman and seriously injuring another.

violence by Downes on the women, giving evidence.

But that trial was stopped and a new jury picked, with the Crown then applying for that witness’ statement to be read instead of the witness being in court.

That application came very late in the piece, giving Downes’ defence lawyers barely the weekend to prepare opposition, Winter said.

Downes and his lawyers prepared on the basis they would question that witness, then put to them differing accounts from another eyewitness, who would also be quizzed on differences.

Challenging that statement in submissions to the jury was not as effective as cross-examining witnesses, Winter said.

That came at a time when getting instruction from Downes was difficult due to the state of the Covid-19 pandemic and associated health controls.

‘‘None of this situation that evolved ... was of [Downes’] making.’’

An application to adjourn the case was turned down, leaving the jury to hear that first witness’ statement unchallenged, Winter said.

Crown lawyer James Carruthers said there were slight differences between the two witnesses, but the inconsistencies could still have been exploited by Downes’ lawyers at trial.

That first witness’ evidence was not referenced when the judge summed up the trial for the jury, showing it played a minor part.

Not adjourning the case was not an issue, as it was not clear how the extra time would be used, Carruthers said.

The judges reserved their decision.