A matter of self-defence

A son reunited with his mother, an abusive boyfriend, a death. Lawyer Roger Laybourn was faced with a highly unusual case when he defended a young man in the High Court at Hamilton last week. Kate Monahan reports.

It’s a tragic tale, something Shakespeare might have penned.

A 25-year-old son seeks out his birth mother in Hamilton, calling her from his Northland home, asking if he can come and stay. They have had contact on and off over the years, but he wants to reconnect after 22 years of living apart.

She is delighted.

From the age of three he had been raised by his father in a gentle, loving environment, taught to treat women with respect. But his mother’s life is worlds away from what he knows – he doesn’t realise it, but she is speaking to him from a women’s refuge.

Several weeks after their reunion, the story takes a violent turn, and the happy family scene descends into something out of Once Were Warriors. In a drunken rage, the mother’s abusive boyfriend explodes, blindsiding her with a blow, then attacks the son after he goes for help. They fall to the ground wrestling, and, trying to protect himself and his mother, the son stabs his mother’s partner 11 times.

Early on March 5 last year, there is blood on the floor of a Queens Ave, Frankton, flat. A woman weeps over her partner’s body, while her son waits for the police to arrive.

Some 16 months later, the final scenes of this dysfunctional family tableau were played out last week in the High Court at Hamilton, with Cameron Rodger, now 26, denying murdering his mother’s partner, Carl Mitchell Williams, 32.

The woman caught between her son and her lover, Rangi Gina Hopa, testified for the prosecution.

Like Jake “the Muss”, Williams was handy with his fists, and testimonies from Rangi and her daughter Rebecca Hopa painted a picture of a violent man, a wife beater given to jealous rages. “(Mum) would come to my house with black eyes, scratches, fat lips and a bleeding nose. He was unstoppable,” Rebecca told the jury.

Last Friday, the jury acquitted Rodger of the murder, in a highly unusual case of claiming self-defence of another.

His defence lawyer, Hamilton barrister Roger Laybourn, says Williams’ death will haunt Rodger for the rest of his life.

ON Tuesday this week, Laybourn reflects on the case in his Anglesea St offices, just a short walk from the courthouse.

Affable and friendly, dressed in a pinstripe suit, he is one of Hamilton’s senior defence lawyers, handling an estimated 16 murder trials in his 25-year career. He’s known as one of the best, the lawyer to call if you are up on a serious charge. But this one was a doozy.

“I think the fact it was self-defence of another was unusual,” says Laybourn, referring to section 48 of the Crimes Act, regarding defence against assault. “Usually it is if you are being injured or killed by another, but in this case, it was, `I’m defending myself so I can protect my mother’.”

The section reads: “Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.”

Senior lecturer at Waikato University’s law school, Brenda Midson, says the jury must have been satisfied Rodger and his mother faced imminent death and the level of force used was reasonable, in the circumstances. “Most of these cases (using section 48) are people acting in defence of themselves,” says Midson. “It tends to be applied in the defence of another, not always successfully, by mothers pertaining to themselves and their children against an abusive partner, but in those situations it can be hard to prove, as there is often a pre-emptive strike – think of the Gay Oakes and Christine King scenarios.”

The jury of seven women and five men were asked to consider Rodger’s intentions and apply societal standards of what is reasonable defensive force. “The 12 from the community have to ask `do we believe, when looking through his eyes, that the force he applied was reasonable?’,” says Laybourn. “Did they think he had any other viable options other than use the knife? Was it reasonable for him to fight this man with his bare fists so his mother was not in ongoing danger, or was that not a reasonable option in those circumstances?”

It was a harrowing case.

“It was a real mixture of tragedy, drama and conflict,” says Laybourn.

“You had the death which, everyone was at pains at the trial to acknowledge, was a tragedy.”

Williams was the father of six children, and his large family, including eight siblings, hailed from Coromandel.

The prosecution testimonies of Rangi Hopa and her daughter (and Rodger’s half-sister) Rebecca Hopa, painted a desperate picture of domestic violence.

Williams was known to the police, and a search of the Times’ files shows his name in court reports, including charges of drink driving, reckless driving, and failing to stop in December 1996; offensive behaviour in August 1996 and assaulting a female in February 1997.

In court, Rebecca Hopa testified she had seen Williams attack her mother on three occasions, and said he became jealous and violent whenever her mother gave attention to other people. She tried to warn Rodger when it was clear he was moving to Hamilton, and spent six hours one night pouring her heart out, concerned he know the truth of her mother’s relationship with Williams.

“He said he was going to judge himself,” says Laybourn. “To his credit, he was very fair, not to prejudge, he was going to respect the man his mum loved.

“He was brought up to cherish and protect women, particularly mothers.

“His natural father gave evidence and described his upbringing. For the boys, they were to protect and respect women, and treat women, and these were his words; particularly mums as treasures, and violence to women, was, in his words, an absolute no-no. He said Cameron would have seen absolutely no violence in his upbringing. Their family values were all about peace making and mediation. When you contrast that with the life his mother Rangi Hopa and her daughter Rebecca Hopa described to the jury, it was one of domestic violence and being dominated.”

It was a clash of cultures and characters.

-Mother, son and boyfriend lived together for three or four weeks without incident.

The two men worked for a local meat works company, but on different shifts. In court, there was no suggestion of violence before that fateful night.

LAYBOURN describes the night of Saturday March 4, 2006.

Rangi and Williams are out socialising and drinking, returning to their Queens Ave flat about 11pm. Rodger is cooking in the kitchen. He is concerned about their drinking and, fearing trouble, encourages them to go back out. Williams is on a combination of 12 per cent Cody’s, an RTD bourbon, and cannabis, which has caused him to smash up the flat on a previous occasion.

Williams goes to get changed and Rodger offers him his All Blacks t-shirt to wear. When he returns to the kitchen, Rodger compliments Williams, saying “Gee bro, you look cool”. Later, Rangi Hopa will testify Williams swells with pride at the compliment.

Rangi gets changed and Rodger offers her his black jacket. She isn’t used to such affection. She kisses and hugs him and says “thank you, son”.

This seems to alter Williams’ mood dramatically. Perhaps he is jealous. Or perhaps the jacket has triggered anger or disgust in Williams, who had Mongrel Mob connections. He swears, shouts “sieg heil” and “nigger” – anti-Black Power slurs – and gives the Mongrel Mob hand signal.

Rangi goes to the bedroom, and when she returns, she thinks she sees Williams hit her son. She tells Williams off, says her son has done nothing wrong, and says: “If you have to hit anyone, hit me”.

She turns. Williams hits her from behind with a heavy blow, and she falls to the floor.

Rodger is terrified. He runs next door for help from a neighbour, who is a workmate. But rather than helping, he sends Rodger packing, saying “take your taki (private affairs) back there”.

Rodger returns to the flat, to his bedroom. He takes a knife from a drawer, one he has brought home from the meat works, and puts it in his pocket to defend himself.

As soon as Rodger comes out of the bedroom Williams attacks him, punches him in the head, and they fall to the floor. Rodger struggles to fight off the bigger man. Williams is about 1.8m tall, 90kg, well-built and strong, while Rodger is about 5cm shorter, plump and not used to fighting.

Rodger pulls the knife from his pocket, and, pinned underneath Williams, desperately uses it.

The pathologist’s report later finds 11 knife wounds to Williams’ body, but most of them are nicks, with the two fatal wounds being one to the heart and one to the lungs.

Rodger then goes to the neighbour’s, and they call the police and ambulance. On his return, Rodger feels for Williams’ pulse, but he is dead. Rangi is distraught. Rodger waits on the driveway for the police.

When Hamilton police Sergeant Pete Whittaker arrives at the property, he meets Rodger and asks him if he has seen the stabber. Rodger says: “It’s me, I did it”. He tells the police he stabbed Williams because “he was trying to waste my mother”.

LAYBOURN says the first response is significant. “Research shows that often people tell the truth out of shock at the beginning, and then adjust their response later when they become a lot more concerned about themselves,” he says. “Often, (defence lawyers) are trying to convince a jury the second story is the truth, not the first.”

Rodger has never denied killing Williams, his statements have been consistent, and he has co-operated with police and given DNA evidence.

He has since gone back to Northland and couldn’t be contacted for this story.

“He’s a guy who will definitely carry this for the rest of his life, he won’t shrug it off,” says Laybourn. He has dealt with some tough clients in his time, but says Rodger is a “good kid”, a “somewhat cruisy and laid-back” young man, with no prior convictions, not even a speeding ticket.

The police did not oppose Rodger’s bail, and for 18 months he lived back in Kaikohe, reporting to the police, never missing a day.

“He’s quiet, humble and respectful. He’s gentle,” says Laybourn. “That situation was absolutely alien to him and he was absolutely terrified. The one thing that impressed me is he has never tried to make excuses for the fact that he’s killed someone; he’s always accepted that it is terrible. I have a lot of clients who make excuses for their actions, but he has never done that.”

Rangi Hopa said she wasn’t ready to talk about the case. The loss of her partner was painful and she is still grieving. She hasn’t heard from her son since he went back to Northland and says he is a “humble man” who is still struggling with Williams’ death. After a short reunion, they are separated once again. Because she was testifying for the prosecution, the mother and son were not allowed to talk leading up to or during the trial.

Is she angry with her son for killing her partner?

“I was at first, I’ve gone through ups and downs of grieving, but no, not now,” she says.

FOR defence lawyers, there is a lot of work in preparing for a murder trial. Laybourn likens it to an iceberg, where much work is done below the surface, from in-depth scene examinations, a thorough pathologist’s and medical report, and an extensive homicide inquiry by the police.

“You have to learn about everything,” says Laybourn, of preparing his defence strategy. “And once you have analysed absolutely everything and how it fits, you have to put aside what is not important. You also have to be aware of the potential for things to emerge.”

Like a prize fighter, a good defence lawyer has to be “nimble on his feet” says Laybourn. He says law schools teach “safety rules” for lawyers – such as never asking a questions you don’t know the answer to, or you could get a disastrous result. “I break that one all the time, and it comes from instinct.”

Laybourn says he considers “what questions to ask or not ask, what evidence to challenge or not challenge, what evidence to call or not call. How do I pitch my final address? Keep it low-key or add an element of drama? How will different ages and genders in the jury take it, and how do I pitch an argument with general appeal to the jury?”

He loves his work and says he thrives on it, despite the long hours. He likes to do outdoor activities, such as skiing, fishing, kayaking and tramping, as stress relief.

Defending people, whether guilty or not, doesn’t cause him an ethical dilemma, he says. “It’s not our role to judge. An analogy is it is like asking a surgeon whether he minds the kind of person he is operating on – perhaps he doesn’t like the person’s views or the way he treats his dog, so does he not do the surgery?

“It’s a funny combination of a privilege and a huge responsibility, to have somebody’s fate in your hands. You can make one bad call and get a bad result. It’s not a nine-to-five job.”

- Waikato Times

PETER DRURY/Waikato Times

Source: Waikato Times http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/life-style/29418/A-matter-of-self-defence