Verdict in roadside shooting
A High Court jury has decided a man who gunned down a rival on the side of the Kopu-Hikuai Rd is guilty of murder.
Adrian Reginald George Phillips, 24, has, for the last six weeks, been standing trial in the High Court at Hamilton.
He was charged with murder in relation to the death of Bayden Williams, 20, who was found dead on the side of the Kopu-Hikuai Rd in the Coromandel Peninsula on the evening of Wednesday, August 5, 2020.
The Crown alleged Phillips deliberately rammed Williams’ vehicle off a twisting stretch of road.
When Williams climbed up a bank back to the roadside, about 7pm that night, Phillips fatally injured him by shooting him three times – in the thigh, shoulder and, finally, his head – with a shotgun.
The jurors retired at 11am yesterday, following the summing up from Justice Melanie Harland, and returned with their verdict at 2.40pm. Their decision was met with impassivity from Phillips, but some members of Williams’ family in the public gallery clapped as the verdict was read out.
He will be sentenced on August 12. Speaking outside court following the verdict, Phillips’ lawyer Ron Mansfield QC said it was a crime that never should have happened.
‘‘This case is a sad example of people in our community with mental health issues not being identified and sufficiently treated when they need it.’’
It was the resourcing of the health sector that was truly at fault, he said.
‘‘It’s a sad day for Mr Phillips, given he had real issues and tried to get help. The fact that he couldn’t [and it] led to something as tragic as this is an unfortunate and sad indictment on our health system.’’
Also speaking after the verdicts, Williams father Lance Williams said while he was pleased with the result, there was no actual joy for anyone involved.
‘‘We have waited a very long time for this. It’s been very hard on our family to hear what happened to Bayden in very great detail.
‘‘I hope [Phillips] gets the book thrown at him for what he’s done.’’
The trial was originally set down for two weeks, however delays and interruptions – mostly wrought by people involved coming down with Covid and other illnesses – means it is now approaching the start of a sixth week.
The Crown case, which was led by Rebecca Mann and Jacinda Hamilton, contended Phillips was in a murderous rage – originating from a misconceived grudge – when he fired the shots.
His defence counsel Ron Mansfield QC and Hannah Stuart said Phillips fired the shots in selfdefence, because he believed Williams – who he says was charging and lunging at him – was about to stab him with a knife.
Phillips never claimed to have actually seen a knife. Also, no such implement was found by police. Phillips said he fired a warning shot into the ground, then deliberately shot Williams in the thigh and then the shoulder in a bid to stop Williams’ advance. It did not work. He had one round left and claimed he was left with no choice but to fire a shot at his rival’s head.
Phillips was also in the grip of severe depression, and suffering from anxiety and elements of post-traumatic stress disorder at the time of the shooting, and this badly affected his thinking and judgment. Additionally, Williams had a history of being violent and was known to carry a knife around with him. Harland told the jurors they should strive to reach a unanimous verdict.
She gave them a question trail, the first of which was whether Phillips caused the death of Williams by shooting him in the head.
This, suggested Harland, would give them little trouble, as it was not something that was being disputed in the trial.
The next thing they would have to decide was ‘‘the crunchy issue’’ of whether Phillips was acting in selfdefence when he shot Williams.
Did he use more force than was reasonable in repelling the perceived danger, and did Phillips have other options open to him, and the time to take those options?
The third issue was whether Phillips had murderous intent when he killed Williams.
This could mean he knew he was going to cause a bodily injury to Williams that was likely to lead to his death – but fired the gun regardless.
If they decided yes, that would mean he would be guilty of murder.
If no, then he would be guilty of manslaughter, she said.