'Loving relationship': Defence denies DeLuney fell out with mother
DeLuney is on trial at the High Court in Wellington charged with murdering the 79-year-old at her Khandallah home in January 2024, which she denies.
The Crown finished its closing argument on Friday, arguing DeLuney had been stealing cash from her mother and then violently attacked her, leaving her dead or dying, perhaps following a confrontation about money.
But defence lawyer Quentin Duff said there was no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between DeLuney and her mother.
There was only evidence, he said, of "an ordinary and loving relationship, albeit with its own problems".
ADVERTISEMENT
He asked the jury not to accept that they were being asked to decide that DeLuney had killed her mother, without knowing why.
He argued the police investigation had failed to consider other suspects - by 7 February, it had narrowed down to DeLuney only.
Helen Gregory. (Source: rnz.co.nz)
"Of course she should have been a suspect," Duff said. "In none of our cross examination have we criticised that."
But he said there should have been two others - the first, a mysterious person who knocked on the door of a house further up the street that same night but left before the homeowner answered.
The second was someone who left a coffee cup in a pot plant at Gregory's address, which Duff said was never investigated, and should have been.
The Crown argued on Friday it was DeLuney who took that money, and she who put the idea of the handyman being the culprit in her mother's head.
ADVERTISEMENT
Duff drew the jury's attention to the "myth" of the attic fall, which had "perpetuated itself right throughout the way of this investigation, through to this trial".
He said DeLuney had told them about the fall, but had never claimed that had been the cause of death - rather, the police had latched onto that, and worked to disprove it.
"They were hellbent, you might think, on disproving and exposing Ms DeLuney for being a liar."
He also accused the police of inserting themselves into the story, to make judgement calls on what DeLuney had done.
But he said DeLuney's decisions made sense when you considered what we had heard about the people involved.
The court heard that, on a past occasion, Gregory had fallen out of her bed - therefore, it made sense for DeLuney to put her on the floor.
It heard her Gregory hated hospitals, and was scared of being put in a home. On top of that, DeLuney was scared of being blamed for letting her mother climb into the attic in the first place - so it made sense that she didn't call an ambulance.
ADVERTISEMENT
And it made sense, Duff said, that DeLuney would leave her mother to fetch her husband, Antonio - if the injury was minor, and all she needed was monitoring overnight, it would be "a load shared" to fetch someone who happened to know CPR, Duff said.
"That's common sense."
The defence's closing argument continues this afternoon.
rnz.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
15 hours ago
- 1News
'Loving relationship': Defence denies DeLuney fell out with mother
Julia DeLuney's defence says there's no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between her and her mother, Helen Gregory, that would explain a murder. DeLuney is on trial at the High Court in Wellington charged with murdering the 79-year-old at her Khandallah home in January 2024, which she denies. The Crown finished its closing argument on Friday, arguing DeLuney had been stealing cash from her mother and then violently attacked her, leaving her dead or dying, perhaps following a confrontation about money. But defence lawyer Quentin Duff said there was no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between DeLuney and her mother. There was only evidence, he said, of "an ordinary and loving relationship, albeit with its own problems". ADVERTISEMENT He asked the jury not to accept that they were being asked to decide that DeLuney had killed her mother, without knowing why. He argued the police investigation had failed to consider other suspects - by 7 February, it had narrowed down to DeLuney only. Helen Gregory. (Source: "Of course she should have been a suspect," Duff said. "In none of our cross examination have we criticised that." But he said there should have been two others - the first, a mysterious person who knocked on the door of a house further up the street that same night but left before the homeowner answered. The second was someone who left a coffee cup in a pot plant at Gregory's address, which Duff said was never investigated, and should have been. The Crown argued on Friday it was DeLuney who took that money, and she who put the idea of the handyman being the culprit in her mother's head. ADVERTISEMENT Duff drew the jury's attention to the "myth" of the attic fall, which had "perpetuated itself right throughout the way of this investigation, through to this trial". He said DeLuney had told them about the fall, but had never claimed that had been the cause of death - rather, the police had latched onto that, and worked to disprove it. "They were hellbent, you might think, on disproving and exposing Ms DeLuney for being a liar." He also accused the police of inserting themselves into the story, to make judgement calls on what DeLuney had done. But he said DeLuney's decisions made sense when you considered what we had heard about the people involved. The court heard that, on a past occasion, Gregory had fallen out of her bed - therefore, it made sense for DeLuney to put her on the floor. It heard her Gregory hated hospitals, and was scared of being put in a home. On top of that, DeLuney was scared of being blamed for letting her mother climb into the attic in the first place - so it made sense that she didn't call an ambulance. ADVERTISEMENT And it made sense, Duff said, that DeLuney would leave her mother to fetch her husband, Antonio - if the injury was minor, and all she needed was monitoring overnight, it would be "a load shared" to fetch someone who happened to know CPR, Duff said. "That's common sense." The defence's closing argument continues this afternoon.
Otago Daily Times
18 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Murder accused had 'loving relationship' with mother
By Kate Green of RNZ Julia DeLuney's defence says there's no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between her and her mother, Helen Gregory, that would explain a murder. DeLuney is on trial at the High Court in Wellington charged with murdering the 79-year-old at her Khandallah home in January 2024, which she denies. The Crown finished its closing argument on Friday, arguing DeLuney had been stealing cash from her mother and then violently attacked her, leaving her dead or dying, perhaps following a confrontation about money. But defence lawyer Quentin Duff said there was no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between DeLuney and her mother. There was only evidence, he said, of "an ordinary and loving relationship, albeit with its own problems". He asked the jury not to accept that they were being asked to decide that DeLuney had killed her mother, without knowing why. He argued the police investigation had failed to consider other suspects - by 7 February, it had narrowed down to DeLuney only. "Of course she should have been a suspect," Duff said. "In none of our cross examination have we criticised that." But he said there should have been two others - the first, a mysterious person who knocked on the door of a house further up the street that same night, but left before the homeowner answered. The second was a contractor who had previously worked for Gregory, and who she had suspected had taken money from her in the past. The Crown argued on Friday it was DeLuney who took that money, and she who put the idea of the handyman being the culprit in her mother's head. Duff drew the jury's attention to the "myth" of the attic fall, which had "perpetuated itself right throughout the way of this investigation, through to this trial". He said DeLuney had told them about the fall, but had never claimed that had been the cause of death - rather, the police had latched onto that, and worked to disprove it. "They were hellbent, you might think, on disproving and exposing Ms DeLuney for being a liar." He also accused the police of inserting themselves into the story, to make judgement calls on what DeLuney had done. But he said DeLuney's decisions made sense when you considered what we had heard about the people involved. The court heard that, on a past occasion, Gregory had fallen out of her bed - therefore, it made sense for DeLuney to put her on the floor. It heard her Gregory hated hospitals, and was scared of being put in a home. On top of that, DeLuney was scared of being blamed for letting her mother climb into the attic in the first place - so it made sense that she didn't call an ambulance. And it made sense, Duff said, that DeLuney would leave her mother to fetch her husband, Antonio - if the injury was minor, and all she needed was monitoring overnight, it would be "a load shared" to fetch someone who happened to know CPR, Duff said. "That's common sense." The defence's closing argument continues this afternoon.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Supreme Court to hear appeal against sentence of man who committed rape at age 15
By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of The young man's lawyers say he should have been dealt with in the Youth Court, where a prison sentence would have been unlikely. Photo: RNZ Insight This article deals with sexual offending against three young women and may be distressing for some readers. A 15-year-old who raped a teen before going on to sexually assault two women a few years later was found guilty and sent to prison for just over three years. Now lawyers are arguing before the Supreme Court about whether he should have been sentenced as a youth, based on his age when he first offended, or as a grown man when he was convicted at the age of 21. His lawyers say he was a child when he offended and should have been dealt with as such by the courts. But lawyers for the Crown say he turned out to be a repeat sexual offender with no remorse, who assaulted two more young women when he was 18. The outcome of the case could determine if he will be sent back to prison - he is currently out on bail - or if he receives a community-based sentence and rehabilitation. The young man's name, personal details, and the identities of his victims are all suppressed. The rape victim was older than him. One of the other two women he went on to offend against several years later was older, the other younger. His first victim had consumed alcohol and drugs before the young man, at that time just 15 years old, gave her sleeping pills. She was unable to stay alert, and he raped her. The offending against the other two women happened when he was 18. The women each awoke to find him sexually assaulting them. The offences came to light later on and the young man, by then an adult, was charged in respect of all three women at the same time - one charge of rape and two of unlawful sexual connection. He admitted the lesser sexual connection charges on the morning his trial was due to begin and was found guilty of the rape by a jury two days later. He was 21 years old when convicted, and was sentenced in a district court to three years and four months in prison after the judge took the rape as the most serious and "lead" offence. He is now appealing against that sentence. His lawyers, Letizea Ord and Emily Blincoe, say that if he had been charged with rape close to the time he committed it, he would probably have been dealt with in the youth justice system, for offenders aged 17 and under. The emphasis in the Youth Court is on rehabilitation. In their submissions his lawyers say it was "highly unlikely" that he would have been sent to prison had he been dealt with there. They say that the two charges of unlawful sexual connection, which would have been dealt with in an adult court, would not have attracted a sentence of imprisonment on their own. They also say that the community would be safer if he were dealt with outside the prison system, with specialist treatment, because no targeted youth sexual offender programmes are available behind bars. Ord and Blincoe argue that New Zealand is an "outlier" in how it deals with offences committed by minors but uncovered later. In England and Wales, an offender's age at conviction is specified in law, but sentencing guidelines are based on the outcome that was likely to have been applied at the date of the offence, and prison is a "last resort". The Australian states take a similar approach, and Canada has a law which says that youth justice legislation applies to all offending committed under the age of 18, regardless of when charges are laid. However, the Crown Law Office said New Zealand law did not support sentencing outcomes in such cases that disregarded the legislation and methodology of the adult courts in favour of the processes governing the "intensely specialised" Youth Court. "The appeal also requires the [Supreme] Court to engage with an artificial factual scenario: to treat [the appellant] as though he was still 15 years old for the purpose of sentencing," the Crown submissions to the court said. "That ignores the reality of the case before the court: a 22-year-old repeat sexual violation offender who denied any wrongdoing and remained unremorseful at sentencing. One who, up until the time this court granted him bail, had taken no steps towards rehabilitation." The young man has so far spent 13 months in custody. He has engaged in rehabilitation since being bailed. The Supreme Court will begin hearing his case on Tuesday. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
