Red Fox Tavern murder trial: ‘explosive’ testimony by man who felt compelled to stop judicial error, defense closure says

The defense has closed its case in the infamous and fatal Red Fox Tavern robbery trial, with one attorney arguing that “explosive” testimony alleging another man confessed has been “devastating” to the Crown case.

A name-suppressed man and Mark Joseph Hoggart are on trial for the 1987 aggravated robbery of the pub and the murder of its owner, Christopher Bush, in Waikato.

The Crown says they are the two heavily disguised intruders who broke into the back door of the Maramarua tavern on work weekend.

The unidentified defendant is alleged to have fired a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun, killing Bush before his three staff members were tied up and just over $ 36,000 stolen.

Defense attorney Christopher Stevenson, who represents the unidentified defendants, said the jury was asked to convict other human beings of murder when “someone else has confessed to it.”

Stevenson said a prisoner’s testimony, which says Lester Hamilton confessed in jail, “could only be described as a bomb” that was “devastating” for the Crown.

The prisoner, who has name suppression, felt compelled to go to court and testify to stop a judicial error, he said.

“He knows they are the wrong people.”

Stevenson said it was very easy to talk about the concepts of courage and justice.

But it was “incredibly brave” to come to court to testify, he said.

“He was not prepared to take that secret to his grave.”

Yesterday, Crown Prosecutor Natalie Walker said the man’s testimony had “signs of unreliability.”

She said that he had a distant attitude, showed an unwillingness to accept proven facts, and had a motivation to give false evidence.

Walker said Hamilton had an alibi that meant “the alleged confessions he made cannot be true.”

Today, Stevenson said that Tim McKinnel had given proof that Hamilton could have traveled faster to the tavern than the Crown case reasoned by driving over the speed limit.

“The Hail Mary that Lester Hamilton can be ruled out because he has an alibi is blatant nonsense.”

Stevenson referred to the fact that his client, who had previously been convicted of an aggravated robbery in Auckland, had disposed of a sawed-off shotgun.

The Crown argues that this is meaningless unless it is the murder weapon.

Stevenson said the unidentified defendant knew the police would see him because of the earlier aggravated robbery and was scared.

The defense attorney criticized that his client had been nominated for the police investigation by Philip Dunbier on Christmas Eve 1987.

It should be viewed in the context of what was happening at the time, he said.

“He was a con man and that was his oxygen.”

Dunbier agreed to assist police with a “sting” operation on a Napier motel room to film the unidentified defendant.

“Here’s the catch,” Stevenson said.

“Nothing incriminating about that. Doesn’t it tell you something?”

Dunbier has testified at trial recalling a conversation on the beach in which he said he asked the unidentified defendant if he was responsible, prompting a “slightly cheeky look.”

“Mr. Dunbier can say what he wants,” Stevenson said.

“You can mark with a wink and a nod or whatever.”

But the unidentified defendant had consistently denied responsibility, he said.

Hoggart’s defense attorney, Craig Tuck, said his client had been in court with his “timeless, resplendent mullet,” but the evidence against him had not.

“It’s been almost invisible,” Tuck said.

“All he really wants is what you would want.

“Just a fair try.”

The trial continues with Judge Mark Woolford summarizing the case for the jury tomorrow.