Too hot in the kitchen

Bin had been having arguments with Hiu and her husband Andrew over shared work and living arrangements. They all worked together at a restaurant that they shared a financial interest in, and also lived together in a house in Baulkham Hills. Given this sort of arrangement, perhaps it wasn’t surprising that things were starting to fall apart. Arguments were increasing during 1995, and in November they had a particularly bitter fight in the kitchen of the restaurant, resulting in Andrew brandishing a cleaver at Bin

Things did not improve when they all returned home that evening, and the two women were shouting at each other, with Hiu threatening to get a knife and chop up Bin. Andrew heard most of what was going on, and at the same time as Hiu uttered this threat, he heard noises downstairs in the kitchen that sounded like someone getting out a knife or cleaver. The two women apparently ended up getting into a physical fight, and somehow this got to the point where Hiu pulled out a rifle, aimed it at Bin and threatened to fire.

Bin’s husband Ivan intervened, and things seemed to go no further. Apparently there was further discussion of a more sensible nature and the turbulent evening had come to an end, as far as Andrew was concerned. There did not seem to be any more trouble for a fortnight or so (although Bin later claimed that Hiu had repeated her threats to kill Bin), but on the 22nd November tensions exploded into another physical fight between the two women.

Bin claimed she came home early, and didn’t expect to find Hiu at the house. She was worried about the rifle Hiu had pulled out two weeks before, and decided to go in search for it. She eventually located it in a dismantled condition, whereupon she took it back to her own room and reassembled it. She also inserted the magazine, which contained a number of bullets. She claimed she did this is for self-protection, because she was frightened Hiu would use it against her, as she had threatened.

Later on Bin heard Hiu outside her room in the upstairs part of the house, and as she came out of the bedroom she was confronted by Hiu. Bin said Hiu again made threats to killer, and stared attacking her with a stick. Bin had just enough time to grab a metal pole to defend herself with.

Anthony was also home by this stage and heard the sounds of yet another hostile fight. He saw Bin wielding the metal pole, but didn’t see any wooden stick. He didn’t see anything else between the two.

Shortly after, Bin found Hiu and shot her with the rifle, killing her instantly. In the process she also managed to wound Hiu’s daughter Vania. Bin later said that Hiu’s latest threat to killer, coupled with everything that had gone before, made her feel like she had nowhere to turn for help. She said she felt so threatened, and in such a state that it seemed to her the only way out was to use the rifle to kill Hiu.

Bin was put on trial for the murder of Hiu and the intent to murder Vania. She pleaded not guilty to both charges, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty or murder but guilty of manslaughter for the killing of Hiu, and not guilty of intent to murder, but guilty of the malicious wounding of Vania.

In the trial Bin raised both provocation on Hiu’s part, as well as self-defence. It is clear from their verdict that the jury rejected self-defence, but accepted that there was sufficient provocation by Hiu to justify reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter. The same reasoning was applied to the wounding of Vania.

Bin was sentenced to six years in prison with a non-parole period of four years and six months for killing Hiu. For the malicious wounding of Vania she received a fixed term of four years imprisonment, to be served at the same time as the sentence for manslaughter. This is because the two crimes were committed together.

In this case, a somewhat rare Crown appeal was lodged against the manslaughter sentence. The Crown may appeal where they believe a sentence is too lenient, however the test is different to when an accused person appeals. An accused person need only show some level of overly severe sentencing to have a sentence reduced. For the Crown to be successful in a leniency appeal, it must show that the sentence is manifestly inadequate, i.e, not just lenient, but excessively lenient.

Bin lodged a counter-appeal claiming her sentence was too severe. Both arguments were heard and decided at the same time. The Appeal Court felt that in the circumstances, while Bin’s sentence was on the lenient side, the Crown had not shown it was excessively lenient to justify a re-sentencing, and the Crown’s appeal was rejected.

The Court also found that the Judge had made an error in taking into account the obvious distress and anguish experienced by Hiu’s family and friends, as the stated in their Victim Impact Statement. It is established law that while it is important for such Statements to be prepared by the family and read out at the sentence hearings, those views should not be taken into account by Judges in setting their sentences (and rightly so), as it suggests that the killer of a person with no family living or present to make such a statement does not deserve as big a sentence as someone whose family fills the courtroom. However, given the Court’s conclusion that Bin’s sentence was already quite light, her appeal was also rejected.

She was released on 5 January 2003.

Calabrian conflict

Domenico Barca, his sister Grazzia and her husband Raffaele Petula were all born in the Italian province of Calabria. Domenico and his family had emigrated to Australia some twenty-two years prior, and has been a naturalized Australian citizen for fourteen years. He lived with his wife in Cambridge Park, NSW, and the Petulas lived in St Marys.

For most of 1973, Grazzia and her husband had been having arguments, not only about money, but also his personal behaviour, towards other women, and his children.

On the morning of 27th September 1973 Domenico was helping Raffaele build a shed on his land at St Marys. They all ate lunch together at around 11:30am. After, Domenico and Raffaele left in Domenico’s car. Domenico said he then dropped Raffaele at the train station at around 12:45, to catch the train to work. Domenico then said he went to two hardware shops to buy nails, and returned to Raffaele’s at around 1pm. He remained there working on the shed until returning home to Cambrige Park at around 5:45pm.

Raffaele was seen at a bar in St Mary’s at around 12:30 to 1pm that day, and had ordered a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade. He was not seen again.

On Friday evening, 28 September 1973, Raffaele’s body was found in a rubbish dump in a lonely area of bush at Llandilo, NSW. It was partially concealed by some branches, a mudguard and a sheet of felt. It appeared he had been shot twice in the head with a .22 rifle. His skull was fractured, and in the opinion of the doctor performing the post-mortem, this was most likely caused by heavy clubbing over and around the head with a blunt object or instrument. There were some marks on his limbs that suggested he might have been dragged by two persons, but there was also evidence that Raffaele had been shot at or near the place where he was found.

The doctor was of the opinion that death occurred approximately twenty-four to twenty-eight hours before the post-mortem examination took place, as rigor mortis had set in. This placed time of death between 7:30pm and 11:30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973. However, the Crown case was that the murder occurred between 1:00pm and 3:00pm on Thursday 27th, and that the doctor was in error in her estimation of the time of death. The contents of Raffaele’s stomach were an important factor in arriving at this determination. On the day, he had eaten a meal at 11:30am, of potato chips, olives, cheese, salami and capsicum or chilli. The state of digestion of the food indicated that he would have died at most an hour after eating.

Domenico initially claimed that he had an alibi at the time, namely that he was purchasing roofing nails at a local store. However there was some question that these invoices may have been altered. He was interviewed about this by police:

“Q: You will remember that on thr 4th October this year, you came to this police station.

A: Yes, I remember.

Q: At the same time you produced these two receipts to me: (Domenico is shown Receipt No. 36 from Gabriels Builders Hardware, dated 27.9.73; and Receipt No. 42461 from Homemakers Store dated 26.9.73) Are those the two receipts you showed to me?

A: Yes

Q: Do you agree that at the time you produced those receipts to me you told me that you were given them at the time you obtained the nails?

A: Yes

Q: And do you agree that at the time you handed me those receipts they were in a very crumpled condition?

A: Yes

Q: Do you remember that when you handed me those receipts I asked why they were crumpled?

A: Yes, I told you I had them in my pocket since I got the nail.

Q: Since 4th October, we have made enquiries at Gabriels Hardware Store, St Marys, and have been informed that Receipt No. 36 was not issued to you at the time you got the nails at all, but was issued to you on 2nd October, and at your request back-dated to 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I went there on Tuesday and asked them to give me a receipt for the nail and the lady was there. I wanted to see the one that served me, but he wasn’t there, and I say I bought four pound of nail and they didn’t give me the receipt. I said ‘Do you remember the time I left here was about five to one?’. She say ‘I can’t remember’.

Q: Why did you go back to Gabriels on Tuesday and ask them for a receipt dated 27 September?

A: It was very important to me to have the receipt.

Q: Why was it very important to you?

A: So if anyone ask me I could say that’s my receipt where I bought the nail.

Q: Why was it important to show anyone where you bought the nails?

A: If someone ask me it handy to have.

Q: And do you say that is the only reason why you went back to Gabriels and had the receipt back-dated?

A: The only reason.

Q: We have also made enquiries at Homemakers Store at St Marys, and have been informed that on Tuesday 4th October, you also visited that store and asked for this Receipt No. 42461 for two pound of nails to be back-dated to 26th September 1973. Why did you do that?

A: If anyone ask me for the receipt it handy to have it.

Q: And do you ask for receipts for everything you buy?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you normally get the receipts at the time you buy the articles?

A: It never worry me if I get or not.

Q: If it does not worry you if you get the receipts or not, why did you go back and especially get these receipts back-dated?

A: When I been here first I did not have the receipt with me, and then I better go back and ask to give me the receipt, to show to you where I been that days.

Q: Why didn’t you tell Detective Sergeant Sawyer that you did not have a receipt for the nails, but if he went to the store the people would remember you?

A: No one ask me, I not worry about it.

Q: But you did worry enough about it to go back to the store and ask them to back-date the receipt for you?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that you asked the woman at Gabriels Hardware to write on the docket that you purchased the nails about one o’clock?

A: I ask her to put a time on the receipt and told her I was there about five t one and she told me they don’t put time on the receipt.

Q: When you asked her to put a time on the receipt, was that to try and show that you were at Gabriels Building Store purchasing nails about one o’clock on the Thursday 27th September 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you agree that when the man at the Homemakers Store first wrote this receipt (Domenico shown Receipt No. 42461) that he put the date of the docket 2nd September 1973?

A: Yes, I agree.

Q: And do you agree that you asked him to alter the date to 26th September?

A: Yes

Q: And we have been informed that he overwrote the 26th over the date, and then you said to him ‘That is no good, I don’t want it written over, I will have to have another docket’?

A: Yes, I tell him that.

Q: Would you care to tell me why you didn’t want it written over?

A: To make him careful, he do it properly next time.

Q: I suggest to you that the reason you did not want the date altered was that you wanted anyone inspecting that docket (points to Receipt No. 42461), that docket, to believe that it was written out on 26.9.73?

A: Yes. Could I have a glass of water?”

Ammunition that matched the kind used to kill Raffaele was found under Domenico’s house, hidden in a sock. Domenico initially denied having a rifle, but the police told him were going to search his house for a rifle the next day. Immediately upon leaving the police station he returned home, and at 2am emerged carrying a large parcel. He put it inside his car and drove off towards the Nepean River. The police intercepted his car and found the rifle under the back seat, wrapped in material with a sock over the end of the barrel. This matched the sock in which the ammunition was found. Domenico later told police that he had found the rifle buried under his house:

“Q: How did you come to find this gun?

A: After I leave you last time, I was worried about the bullets that were found under my house. I couldn’t go to sleep, I got my lead light out and got under the house and found the gun.

Q: I find it difficult to believe that any person would make a search underneath their house at two o’clock in the morning on the off-chance that a gun might be hidden there. Further, from what you have told us, it is apparent that at the time you were spoken to by the Police, you were headed away from the Penrith Police Station, and in fact were driving towards the river or the gravel pits. Have you anything to say about that?

A: All right, I will tell you. When you told me last night that the Police would come back in the morning to look again for the gun, I knew they would find it, so I dig it up and put it in my car. I never tell my wife. She had a headache, so I told her I would go to the chemist to get something for her. I knew I had to get rid of the gun tonight.

Q: Is this the gun used to kill Raffaele Petula?

A: Yes.”

Later in the police interview:

“Q: We have been informed that during the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had a very big argument at the house, in your presence. What do you have to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that question.

Q: We have been informed that during the course of this argument your sister Grazzia accused Raffaele of misbehaving towards his daughters. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: As at the morning of Thursday 27th September 1973, did you know that Raffaele and your sister Grazzia had had many fights about money, land, and Raffaele’s conduct towards his daughters?

A: That is their business. I won’t answer that.

Q: Di you know that Raffaele is well known in the public bar of the St Mary’s Hotel?

A: I wouldn’t know this.

Q: We have made inquiries at the St Marys Hotel, and we have been informed that Raffaele did not go to the public bar of that hotel on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September. We have also made enquiries at the St Marys Railway Station and have been informed that Raffaele did not catch the 1.03pm train or the 1.18pm train from that Railway Station on that day. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I dropped him there and he go to work.

Q: We have made inquiries at the shops in Queen Street, and from the taxi drivers operating from the taxi rank at the St Marys Railway Station, and not one person saw Raffaele in Queen Street, or near the St Marys Railway Station on the afternoon of Thursday 27th September 1973. Although he was seen in the area by a number of people on the preceding Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Have you anything to say about that?

A: I still say I left him at the taxi rank at twelve forty five.

Q: We have caused the photograph of Raffaele to be published in the local newspapers, and requested that any person who saw him in between the time you say you left him at the St Marys Railway Station and when he was found in the bush at Llandilo, to contact the police, but not one person has reported seeing Raffaele after you say you left him. Have you anything to say about that?

A: No, I have nothing to say about that. I left him at the station, that’s it.

Q: If you had left him at the station as you say, would you expect some person to have seen him somewhere after you had driven away?

A: Oh yeah.

Q: We have been informed that between 12 noon and 2.30pm on Thursday 27th September 1973, two persons saw Raffaele in the public bar of the Waggon Wheel Hotel, which is situated in the Great Western Highway, St Marys. Have you anything to say about that?

A: Well, look, I have nothing to say about that.

Q: We have been informed that Raffaele was served with a schooner of beer and a schooner of lemonade which he carried from the hotel into the street. Do you know anything about that?

A: I know nothing about that.

Q: Do you deny that you were the person to whom Raffaele took the schooner of lemonade on that day?

A: I have nothing to say about that.

Q: Do you agree that when I interviewed you on 4th October 1973, that you told me that you did not like beer very much?

A: Yes, I agree with that.

Q: And do you also agree that during the course of the same interview you told me that you often preferred to drink a schooner of lemonade?

A: Sometime.

Q: Have you been to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys with Raffaele?

A: Yes, on Wednesday night I go there with him from my sister’s place. I was to go home and he say to me ‘You drop me at the pub’. I drop him at the pub, and he say ‘You come in’. I go in with him and I had a lemonade and he had a beer. Then he said ‘You have another one’. I say ‘No, I go home now’. He say ‘All right’, and I drive him back home to his place, and I reach my place at ten o’clock. That was a late night I had.

Q: On that occasion which bar did you have the drink?

A: We had the drink in the bar on the corner of the street.

Q: Did you drink the lemonade on the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: And how many beers did Raffaele have on that occasion?

A: He had only one.

Q: Did you and Raffaele drink your drink whilst you were standing at the bar?

A: Yes.

Q: When you drove Raffaele to him home on Thursday 27th September 1973, did he have his coat with him?

A: I don’t remember.

Q: We have been informed that when Raffaele went to the Waggon Wheel Hotel and bought the glass of beer and the glass of lemonade he was wearing his coat, that is on Thursday 27th September 1973. Have you anything to say about that?

A: When I drop him at the station at twelve forty-five, he no have a coat. He have the shirt with the sleeve rolled up.

Q: Are you absolutely sure of that?

A: Oh yeah, sure.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: What makes you so sure?

A: I remember it.

Q: Do you remember being interviewed by Detective Sergeant Sawyer at the Penrith Police Station on 30th September, this year?

A: Oh yeah

Q: Do you remember Sergeant Sawyer saying to you ‘Can you tell me what clothing Raffaele was wearing when you last saw him?’, can you remember him asking you that?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you remember telling the Sergeant ‘I know he was wearing a shirt with squares, I didn’t much notice’.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, do you agree that there is no mention there that Raffaele is not wearing a coat?

A: Well, he probably not ask me.

Q: Do you know that Raffaele’s coat was found back at his house after he was found dead?

A: No.

Q: Were you at the Petula home all day Friday 28th September 197u3?

A: Yes.

Q: And were you there on Saturday 29th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Sunday 30th September 1973?

A: Yes

Q: Were you there on Monday 1st October 1973?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you still say that you have no knowledge that Raffaele’s coat was found in the kitchen of his home after he was found dead?

A: I don’t know.

Q: If Raffaele was wearing that coat when he was served with the lemonade and beer at the Waggon Wheel Hotel on Thursday 27th September, can you tell me any way it could get back into his house if he did not return to the house or leave the coat in your car?

A: I can’t answer that.

Q: When you were last spoken to by the Police, you did not say anything about seeing Francesca going to the school at the time you arrived back at your sister’s place. Can you tell us why you did not say this before?

A: Probably I forgot.

Q: We interviewed your sister Grazzia here today and for the first time since this inquiry began, she informed us that you arrived at her home on Thursday 27th September just when Francesca was stepping into the school yard. Do you think it unusual that both you and your sister though of this incident which set the time of your return to your sister’s place?

A: No, not unusual.

Q: Would you agree that this may suggest that you and your sister Grazzia have talked about this and decided to tell the Police that the time you got back to your sister’s place on that day was just when Francesca was walking back into the school?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that since the death of Raffaele you had a conversation with Grazzia at her house, and she ask you why you did not return to the house until two o’clock on Thursday 27th September, and you said you were buying the nails, and not to mention it to the Police. Did that conversation take place?

A: Definitely not.

Q: We have been informed that between 28 September and 4th October 1973 you were at your sister Grazzia’s home, and you were overheard to say ‘For money or anything else Calabrians will let you go, but for honour they will kill you for sure’. Did you say that?

A: Yes, I did say that.

Q: And what did you mean by that?

A: What I said.

Q: Were you suggesting that Raffaele was not killed for money or anything else, but for honour and nothing else?

A: Yes.

Q: And did Mrs Petula say ‘That’s for sure. Whoever kill him, kill him for honour and nothing else. They put a cross on him by shooting him one in the nose and one in the ear’. Did she say that?

A: I didn’t hear her say that.

Q: Did you hear anyone say that they had put a cross on Raffaele?

A: No.”

Domenico was interviewed again in November of that year:

“Q: I am now going to ask you some questions in relation to the murder of Raffaele Petula on Thursday 27th September 1973.

A: You have got the gun and you have got me. What more do you want?

Q: From our inquiries, we believe that you did not drive Petula to the St Marys Railway Station as you have previously stated, but went with him to the Waggon Wheel Hotel at St Marys. Is that right?

A: You know where I went, I am the only one Raffaele would buy lemonade for.

Q: We believe that within one hour of leaving the Petula home, you drove him to an area of bushland at Llandilo where, after hitting him over the head, you killed him by shooting him twice in the head with that gun (points to rifle on table).

A: That’s the gun all right, but I don’t want to tell you what happened until after I see my father.

Q: Were any other persons involved in the shooting of Petula?

A: I won’t answer that.

Q: Would you care to tell us why Raffaele Petula was murdered?

A: Because he is a mongrel, that’s why.

Q: What time do you say you arrived back at your sister Grazzia’s place that afternoon?

A: What did she tell you?

Q: I am not prepared to tell you what your sister told me at this time.

A: After I have seen her I will tell you.

Q: We are satisfied that you were responsible for the death of Raffaele Petula, and you will be charged with his murder. Is there anything further that you want to tell us, or any statement you wish to make before we complete this interview?

A: (long pause… Barca starts to cry). I have lost everything. My wife, my beautiful children. It would be better if the mongrel was still alive. I don’t want to talk about it anymore. I am finished with it. All I want to do is go home to my family.”

A fellow Calabrian, Salvatore Manna, was called as a witness by the Crown, and gave evidence of what he said was a Calabrain custom - if a woman was dishonoured by her husband, he was liable to be killed according to a special custom, called ‘putting a cross on him’. The husband would be shot twice through the head. One bullet was to be fired through the nose, and the other through the ear, so that the path of the two bullets intersected in the skull to form a cross.

Salvatore further stated that the first responsibility to vindicate the honour of a woman rests upon her father. He was cross-examined about this:

“Q: Do you know very much about this Calabrian custom that you have mentioned?

A: Only what I have heard and been brought up with, you know.

Q: Is this something you came to know about in the first twelve years of your life in Calabria, or have you heard it among people in Australia?

A: No, well, I have been brought up in the Calabrian custom way, and what I have heard amongst Calabrians.”

Grazzia and Domenico Barca’s father Carmello lived at Llandilo, not far from where Raffaele‘s body was found, however there was no evidence at all that Mr Barca Snr was implicated in the murder.

Although the Crown case was circumstantial, the evidence, when taken together, was compelling. The ammunition under the house, the attempt to dispose of the gun, the attempt to create an alibi with the hardware receipts, the sighting of the pair at the Waggon Wheel on the afternoon of the killing, and Raffaele’s coat somehow returning to his house without him.

The defence on the other hand contended that the time of Raffaele’s death was in the evening of the 27th, according to the post mortem report, and that Domenico was at home with his family by this time and could not have committed the offence. The defence asked the jury to reject the Crown’s argument that the killing occurred in the early afternoon, and pointed to evidence of other food in Raffaele’s stomach that were not part of the luncheon meal at Domenico’s. The defence also pointed out that the man who discovered the body had been in the area at the time the Crown say the killing occurred, and had not heard any shots.

The defence also argued that the evidence could just as easily point to Domenico’s father Carmello Barca having killed Raffaele, particularly in light of the Calabrian custom. Domenico was merely hiding the gun and ammo for his father.

It emerged during the course of the trial that Carmello Barca had in fact shot and killed a Mr Perri, the first husband of his daughter Grazzia Petula. Apparently he had also been incensed at Raffaele’s behaviour, and had threatened him on more than one occasion with dire physical consequences.

The defence suggested that after lunch, and a drink together on Thursday, Domenico had in fact driven his brother-in-law Raffaele to his father Carmello’s house and left him there, returning to Grazzia’s house.

Grazzia Petula initiall maintained that Domenico had returned to her house at 1pm that day. However, at the trial, she admitted that he had not in fact returned until around 3pm. She said that she had earlier given a false statement because Carmello Barca, her father, had threatened to stab her if she did not.

Nonetheless the trial judge directed the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that the father had been involved, despite the submissions of defence counsel, and that even if he had encouraged his son to follow out the Calabrian honour killing, this did not absolve Domenico’s guilt, as the mere executioner.

Domenico did not give evidence at his trial, but made a short statement from the dock:

“There are some things with reference to this case that I do not want to say. What I do want to say is that I did not see Raffaele Petula alive after Thursday. I did not kill him or take any part in his killing. I personally do not follow this custom, this Calabrian custom, to kill for honour. I cannot say anything else in reference to this, but please believe me, I am not guilty. That is all.”

The jury convicted and Domenico was sentenced to life. He immediately appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which dismissed it. He took his appeal further, to the High Court.

The High Court felt the trial judge was wrong to tell the jury that there was absolutely no evidence that Carmello Barca had been involved. Whilst it was correct that Carmello himself was not on trial, there was in fact some circumstantial evidence that pointed to his involvement, at the very least. Whilst the High Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge Carmello with Raffaele’s murder, there was enough to put a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether Domenico had in fact shot his brother-in-law. It would certainly go a long way to explaining Raffaele’s rather cryptic statements about what he could tell, and what he could not.

The High Court quashed Domenico’s conviction.

Are opals really bad luck?

Lauri Oinonen was a 62-year-old opal miner from Lightning Ridge. He was good friends with a woman named Donna Wood, and had a good relationship with Donna's grandson Deakin, who also lived in town. But some of his opal had gone missing recently, and he was becoming suspicious that Deakin might have been involved. On Tuesday, Deakin popped in to see Donna, and said he'd heard Pop (Lauri) might be looking for him.

Donna said to him "Well Deakin, you said you went and pinched that opal", and Deakin replied "Yeah, we did."
"You stole that opal, didn't you Deakin"
"Yeah, that's why I thought that Pop was looking for me"

Deakin had been drinking and playing chess with Lauri the day before, but the issue had not come up.

Later that night Donna saw Lauri at her sister Yvonne's place, where he was 'on the turps' (literally - drinking methylated spirits) as well as drinking beer. He'd been drinking all day at another friend's place (Ada Morgan) but said "I must have been fairly drunk at Ada's, because, like, after that I can't remember at all." Later Lauri was chatting to Yvonne's daughter Lisa, who told him about Deakin stealing the opal. She said "Deakin must have pinched the opal from you." He replied "No, he wouldn't do that." She said "Yes, I think so, because he had plenty of money." She said she had seen him with $1,600.

Lauri had no memory of going home, but assumes he took Eddie Morgan home first "because when I got home myself, there was a didgeridoo in the car. I think that must belong to him." When he got home he checked his opal stash, which he kept in a Strepsils tin, and found that there was quite a large stone missing. "Then I realised it must be true what Lisa Bolton has told me, and I find it hard to believe at first, but I have to believe it." He drank more methylated spirits and ruminated on these things "but I don't remember exactly what time I went to sleep." He woke up about five the next morning and made his morning "metho drink", which was a cup of boiling water, coffee, 2 spoons of sugar, and metho. He added more and more metho to the cup, then made himself another one. After that he had run out of coffee, so he made one with lemon concentrate and a lot of sugar.

He decided to go to Deakin and confront him about the opal. "I thought if I take the rifle with me and then ask, he will take me seriously. I didn't want to hurt him, but I wanted him to confess that he took the opal. He said it did not cross his mind that he might hurt him:
"Q: And when did you think about taking the rifle?
A: Just before I went there.
Q: After you had started drinking?
A: Yes
Q: Why did you load the gun?
A: Well, what good is it to take an empty gun? I would have taken a walking stick instead. If I had taken a walking stick with me, it would have been as effective as an empty gun."
It never occurred to him not to load it.
"Q: Didn't you think that taking the gun there loaded and cocked that Deakin might get hurt?
A: To me its safe unless you pull the trigger. What, I can't see what can happen unless somebody pulls the trigger.
Q: Did you put the safety on?
A: No I didn't.
Q: Did you think about putting the safety on?
A: Didn't think about it.
Q: How did you feel physically when you left that morning?
A: I was feeling much better than I was feeling when I woke up."
He put the gun on the backseat of the car.

He drove to Colin Nagy's house on Potch St, where Deakin was staying over with Colin's sister Jenny. Colin was woken at about 6:30am by Laurie telling hm to go wake Deakin up. Lauri said he "went to the door. Only the screen door was closed, the wooden door was open. And I knocked on the screen door and said 'Anyone home?' I did that twice. And then there was no answer. I walked in the lounge room and from there I seen the end of the corridor bedroom door was open and I said 'Colin' a couple of times. Then he turned around and I said 'Where is Deakin?' He said 'Deakin's sleeping in the next room there.' I said 'Can you wake him up and tell him I want to see him outside?' Then he got up and I walked out." Colin went into his sister's room and woke Deakin.

Deakin didn't take long to get up. He came out the front gate close to the car. Laurie said "I opened the back door and took the rifle and went to the front close to him and I pointed the rifle from my hip and said 'You done a dirty trick to me. You stole opal from me.' He said 'No, I never.' I was pretty angry. I did not think about harming him." Deakin moved over near the fence "so that the car was between us" and they were both moving backwards and forwards, on either side of the car. "Then he stooped down and I couldn't see him for a while and I was looking this way and that way, I didn't know which way he was going, and then I seen him over at the car, no, I was actually level with the bonnet part of the car when I seen him running, disappearing behind the corner."

"When I saw him next I just hit - lifted the rifle and put it on my shoulder and pointed to him, to his direction" and the rifle went off.
"Q: Do you know how it went off?
A: No, but I was kind of surprised when it went off.
Q: You told the police that you pulled the trigger.
A: I must have pulled the trigger because otherwise it wouldn't go off."
Lauri said that was what was in his mind when he was talking to the police:
"Q: Did you actually know when you spoke to police that you pulled the trigger?
A: No, but I knew my finger was inside the trigger guard all the time.
Q: Do you know now whether you pulled the trigger?
A: No, I still don't know.
He was asked how his hands were and he replied "oh I was shaking because I got pretty upset when he said 'no, I didn't do it."

After that "I chucked the rifle on the backseat and took off ... I was too scared to go around the back because Colin and Deakin would have been in the house and I didn't think they would have taken it very lightly that I fired a shot."

Colin Nagy was on the toilet when he heard the gunshot. He hopped off and raced outside to see Lauri putting something in the back of his stationwagon and speeding off. He saw Deakin lying on the lawn about 10m from the house, and ran over. Deakin was still breathing. Jenny also came running out, and both tried to give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation for about five minutes, but he just died in their arms. They rolled him over and saw the gunshot wound in his back.

The post-mortem revealed Deakin would have been 2-3m away from the muzzle of the gun when it discharged. Ballistics experts for both the Crown and Defence tested the weapon and found if the rifle was not cocked, there was no way it could discharge. Similarly, it would not fire if the safety catch was on. It was an old weapon, made in the 1930's and quite a bit of force was required to activate the trigger. It did not fire when the trigger was wriggled around back and forth or side to side, and not when slammed into the shoulder. However it did misfire accidentally on one occasion when it was dropped from a height, and once when it was belted with a hammer.

When Lauri was asked "do you know what happened when the rifle discharged?" he said "no, that is unclear to me."
"Q: Have you any idea how the rifle actually discharged?
A: In my opinion I must have pulled the trigger otherwise it wouldn't discharge.
Q: You don't remember doing that?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever mean to pull the trigger?
A: No
Q: Had your rifle ever accidentally gone off before this time?
A: No.
He was asked about his state of intoxication at the time of the shooting and he said "I was definitely drunk." He said that he knows he is responsible for the death of Deakin.

Donna Wood remembers Lauri coming over early on the Wednesday morning, pretty upset. She knew he'd been drinking a lot of metho in the last six weeks or so, pretty much day and night. The first thing she remembers him saying was "I fired a shot at Deakin. Can you go up there and check him out and see what happened?" Donna's husband Reg told him not to tell lies, or something to that effect, and Lauri said "Its not bullshit, it really happened, go and check him."

Donna said "We jumped into the car, myself, my husband, and we drove up there to where it happened" They left Lauri on their veranda and took his stationwagon. They saw the gun on the back seat. It didn't take long for them to establish what had happened at Potch St. Donna left Lauri's stationwagon there, and got a lift back home. She told Lauri "You killed Deakin. He's dead." Lauri started to cry. Someone got him a beer, and shortly after, the police arrived. Lauri kept saying "Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it. It wasn't supposed to happen. I'm very sorry... Deakin was like me own grandson." Lauri later said in evidence that he still feels very upset about Deakin's death, and that they had been good friends for five or six years.

Lauri was put on trial for murder. He pleaded not guilty. He agreed he deliberately loaded the cartridge in the rifle, cocked it, and left the safety off, but said he only meant to scare Deakin, and never meant to pull the trigger or hurt Deakin. He called many witnesses to testify to his good character and non-violent nature. Donna Wood gave evidence that in all the time she had known him she'd never seen him violent, and described him as a very honest person. Her husband Reg had known Lauri for 10-15 years and said "he seemed a fairly honest person to me since I had known him."

Reverend Poklea also gave evidence that he had known Lauri since the 60's in Mount Isa, and often asked him to mind their house when he was away. He knew he had difficulty with drinking. When asked if he was a violent man, he said "No, I have never seen him angry. I have never seen him show any - he was always helpful."

The Crown case was that when Deakin managed to break away from the argument and run around the side of the house with his back to Lauri, Lauri lost his chance to confront Deakin any further, at which point he chose to raise the rifle to his shoulder and point it at Deakin. In the Crown's view this couldn't be just "to scare him", as Deakin obviously couldn't see Lauri. The Crown told the jury that Lauri intended to fire the weapon, and reminded them that he had deliberately left the safety catch off. And further, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone's back unless you meant to hurt them.

Medical experts estimated that Lauri's blood alcohol would have been about 0.4 to 0.45 at the time of the shooting, which is normally the "embalming" level (i.e. you're dead). Since it was clearly self-induced, the jury could not take it into account when deciding whether he accidentally fired the weapon, but they could take it into account when deciding whether he meant to hurt Deakin. (Aah, the technicalities of the law.. basically his drunkenness only matters for what he's thinking, but not what he's doing. Go figure.)

Lauri gave evidence that his drinking problem started before he was 19 years old, but only started drinking methylated spirits a couple of years back, initially to cure his hangovers in the morning. He only started to get drunk on it that year. "Not only metho, but I used, when I was in town, I used to beer or some whisky sometimes and some brandy, but I did not bring any alcohol to my home and later in the evening I would drink metho." He agreed he was drinking it constantly in the weeks leading up to the shooting.

Colin Nagy told the jury he'd known Lauri for a few years, and knew he was an alcoholic, but said he could handle it - even after a lot of drinks he was the same as everyone else, and had often seen him drive a car quite well in that state. Donna Wood also knew he'd been on a metho-drinking binge for a few weeks, and had been drinking various types of alcohol almost constantly. She was quite used to seeing him drunk. She agreed he was drunk on the Wednesday morning at her house, and still later at the police station. She gave the following evidence:
Q: He still appeared drunk to you?
A: He appeared drunk to me.
Q: And distraught?
A: Yes, even more so, all the time.

Donna Wood's husband Reg agreed that Lauri seemed pretty drunk when he arrived on Wednesday morning. However the arresting police officers did not observe him to be drunk, saying that Lauri walked steadily, had no difficulty getting up into the Landcruiser, and understood all the questions and responses. Senior Constable Bowra thought he appeared normal at the station, and was rolling his own cigarettes with ease but said "he may be a little hung over, a little tired."

Nevertheless Constable Thomas stated "When I first saw him there was no sign of intoxication whatsoever, but later at the station, he appeared to be withdrawing from some of the effects of intoxication, in that sometimes he would have the shakes. He was very lethargic in the dock. He appeared to me to be having the DT's." During his official interview when asked about what happened, he replied "I'd rather not talk about that because I'm still half-cut." Later in the morning he began vomiting at the police station, and was treated by paramedics for dehydration, and given anti-nausea treatment. He vomited again later in the afternoon and was then transferred to Walgett Hospital.

Dr Moynihan, an expert in this area, said that for an ordinary person to consume that amount (and type) of alcohol, they would hardly be able to move. "But a person who was used to drinking high levels of alcohol would tolerate that type of drinking without too much trouble and given the drinking history of this gentleman, although his blood concentration I feel to be quite high, he would be intoxicated, but he would be able to tolerate it." He said such a person would know what they were doing. "For example, if you tell someone off which you normally wouldn't do perhaps the alcohol gives you what might be false courage to do things, or Dutch courage. It takes those inhibitions off. So you know what you are doing but its just that you are no longer restrained because the alcohol takes the brakes off." The Dr also noted that vomiting can be a reflex action from emotional trauma or an acute anxious state.

In cross-examination Lauri agreed that apart from actually pulling the trigger he remembered almost every single detail of what happened on the morning of the shooting, and apart from firing the rifle, he knew exactly what he was doing, and that his intoxication did not affect his ability to know what he was doing. He said that when Deakin started running, he was running very fast. He said he lifted the rifle up and pointed it at Deakin's back. He was looking along the barrel and could see it was aimed at Deakin's back. He denied that he deliberately shot Deakin to stop him from running. He said it all happened it a second. "I knew most of the things I was doing but I was drunk and if I had been sober I wouldn't go to see Deakin with the rifle and probably not at all.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, on the basis that Lauri did not intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, but had committed an "unlawful and dangerous act" i.e, threatening Deakin with a loaded gun. He was sentenced to 11 years prison, with a non-parole period of eight years.

Lauri appealed his sentence, arguing that he should have been treated as if he meant Deakin no harm at all, given all the evidence of his good character, and that the Judge was wrong to state that it was one of the most serious cases of manslaughter. However the Appeal Court agreed with his Honour's assessment, given that Lauri sought Deakin out, primed for a fight, with a loaded weapon which he had deliberately left unsafe.

Lauri also felt that not enough consideration had been given to his personal circumstances, such as his age (62 years) with an almost clean criminal history, in addition to his offer to plead guilty to manslaughter before the trial began. The Appeal Court agreed with this point, and felt that he had demonstrated remorse. Accordingly, they reduced his sentence to nine years with a non-parole period of six years.


Lauri was released on November 5, 2002.