Evidence On Fatal Injuries

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30975, 3 February 1966, Page 14

Evidence On Fatal Injuries

(N.Z. Press Association.) INVERCARGILL, February 2.

All evidence in the manslaughter hearing against Barry Gordon Grant, a 26-year-old Australian, was completed in the Supreme Court, Invercargill, today before Mr Justice Henry and a jury. Tomorrow morning, His Honour will advise the jury on law before it retires to consider its verdict. The charge arose out of a fight in Esk street, Invercargill, in the early hours of November 22, in which Terence James Burnett Ryley, aged 31, suffered fatal injuries.

Mr J. R. Mills is appearing for the Crown, and Mr J. G. Leggait assisted by Mr M. Gait for the defendant.

Dr. E. F. d’Arth, a pathologist, of Dunedin, said in a post-mortem examination of

Ryley, he found several injuries, the important one being a large bruise on the back of the head. This had resulted in haemorrage of the left side of the brain and in the brain stem. These injuries which were followed by concussion, were responsible for the death of Ryley. They were consistent with a fall on to the back of the head. Under cross-examination by Mr Leggat, Dr. d’Arth finally agreed that there was a “remote” possibility that the injury could have resulted from a free fall, such as a drunk man falling without protecting himself by a body movement.

Detective Sergeant E. M. Jones outlined the events leading to the arrest of Grant, completing the case for tiie Crown. Grant had told him he had had a fight with a man who “tripped and hurt his head.” “Drunken Scuffle”

Dr. P. P. Lynch, a Wellington pathologist, and first witness for the defence, gave evidence to show that the main injury, that on the back of the head, was characteristic of the type received in

drunken scuffles. However, he could not exclude the possibility that the injury could have resulted from a lesser type of fall, although the degree of force and distance would have to be calculated to an almost mathematical

precision. The blow could not have resulted by a direct application of the foot or fist.

Dr. Lynch, who was present during the evidence given by prosecution witnesses, said he had not heard any evidence that explained how the deceased got the injury. Trevor Keith Blacker, a builder, and husband of a prosecution witness, Doreen P. Blackler, described events leading to the fight in Esk street He said he saw the driver of a Zephyr car leap out of the car and rush up to the three Ryley brothers. The passenger in the car followed about 15 yards behind and grabbed one of the brothers.

At this stage, Blackler had remarked to his wife that the five men were too drunk to hurt each other, and had walked towards his car. When he looked back, he saw one of the men lying

down with another standing beside him. He did not see any kicking. Harold Selwyn Johnstone, an air traffic controller, said he noticed the three Ryley brothers scuffling among themselves when he left the resturant. He saw the car pull up and saw the driver, who was dressed in a brown suit, race over to the three. He watched the driver during the ensuing fight, and saw him stamp on the deceased. Johnston remained unshaken on this point. In his summary to the jury, Mr Leggat said that none of the witnesses heard had seen the same thing. It was obvious that some had been mistaken in what they thought they had seen. Other evidence had shown that the defendant was the last to join the fight and the first to leave it.

Evidence on the number of kicks, if any, varied, as did evidence of where in Esk street the fight took place. There was no satisfactory medical explanation as to how the deceased received his fatal injuries, although three witnesses offered varying descriptions of how the deceased had -fallen to the pavement.