The lawyer for one of the men on trial over the Red Fox Tavern shooting and robbery more than 30 years ago says it is almost certain someone else committed the crime.
Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller
Father of two Chris Bush, 43, was gunned down at the pub in Maramarua in October 1987 and the offenders took off with tens of thousands in cash, coins and cheques.
Mark Hoggart and another man with name suppression are on trial in the High Court at Auckland, charged with murder and aggravated robbery.
They deny any involvement in the crime.
In his closing address to the jury, the lawyer for the unnamed defendant Christopher Stevenson said the wrong men are on trial.
He pointed to the evidence of a prison inmate, who said Lester Hamilton - who died in 2003 - had confessed his involvement in the crime to him while they were in jail.
Stevenson said that "bombshell" was devastating for the Crown's theory of what happened at the Red Fox Tavern and who was responsible for it.
"He came forward because he knows the wrong men are on trial," Stevenson said.
"He stood up for truth and justice, that's the only possible reason why he got involved in this case."
Stevenson said the Crown had failed to rule out the possibility Hamilton was the offender.
Stevenson said the prison inmate came to court to give evidence because "he felt compelled to stop innocent men getting convicted, to stop a miscarriage of justice, that's what you've seen in this court".
During the trial, the jury heard evidence from Crown witness Detective Senior Sergeant Michael Hayward, who said Hamilton was considered a prime suspect in the early stages of the police investigation.
However, he said Hamilton had been ruled out by multiple investigation teams as the offender and the police were confident he was not responsible for the crime.
In his closing address to the jury, Hoggart's lawyer Craig Tuck said there was no evidence in the Crown's case to prove his client was involved.
"While he's been present at this trial, the evidence against him hasn't been here," Tuck said.
There was a complete absence of anything that could be relied on to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hoggart was the offender who was carrying the bat, Tuck said.
He said Hoggart found himself entangled in the police investigation in 1988 and he had remained entangled for the rest of his adult life.
Police did not have enough evidence to lay charges against him in 1988 or 2000, and Tuck said there was not enough evidence to find him guilty now.
The judge will sum up the case to the jury of seven men and five women tomorrow morning, before they retire to consider their verdicts.