Metal thief fails to have convictions overturned

A THIEF who stole $70,000 of metal from a Central Otago company, dubbed by a judge ‘‘the most manipulative person I have dealt with in a very long time’’, has failed to have his convictions overturned.

John Andrew Carter was jailed for three years, three months after being convicted on two counts of theft from a Roxburgh fruitprocessing firm, following a jury trial in the Dunedin District Court in 2013.

Despite having served almost the entire sentence, the Court of Appeal granted Carter leave to appeal against the convictions.

The fiveday trial in question was littered with terse exchanges between Judge Roy Wade and the selfrepresented defendant.

Defence lawyer Michael Bott said the judge’s frustration would have been evident to the jury and could have coloured their view.

But Justice Raynor Asher, supported by Justices Peter Woodhouse and Rebecca Ellis, disagreed.

‘‘We do not regard the expressions of exasperation by the judge as warranting any criticism. Mr Carter was extraordinarily argumentative,’’ he said.

‘‘His conduct on many occasions was rude and even abusive and he would take silly points and avoid obviously reasonable requests and questions. We have no doubt that on many occasions he irritated the jury by his actions. This was his choice. He was advised by the judge to rein himself in but would not do so.’’

Carter committed two thefts from Roxdale Foods within a few days of each other in February 2011, brazenly stealing two metal tanks and six frames worth up to $70,000.

The scrapmetal dealer who bought the stolen goods gave evidence of the defendant dropping it off and during the second theft, the truck Carter hired became stuck in mud as he tried to escape.

‘‘Mr Carter was caught in the paddock redhanded in the act of stealing the metal. The Crown case was overwhelming,’’ Justice Asher said.

The defendant blamed the whole fiasco on a man called Billy Hopwood, yet never called him to give evidence.

Mr Bott said the convictions against his client should be quashed because his ‘‘cognitive impairment’’ — stemming from a childhood head injury — led to an unfair trial.

That appeal point was also firmly denied by the Court of Appeal.

‘‘The transcript shows Mr Carter was quick to challenge witnesses in cross examination

whenever they departed from their statements, or where the witnesses’ evidence was inconsistent with those statements,’’ Justice Asher said.

‘‘In our assessment, the trial was fair . . . It is significant that he did in the end tell his story of events to the jury. It was an absurd story, but it was told.’’

The judges shaved three months from the final jail term because of a minor error in sentencing by Judge Wade but it made no difference to Carter because the sentence was completed when the judgement was released recently.