Police probe unexplained death in Newtown
Photo:
RNZ / REECE BAKER
Police say they are probing a sudden death in the Wellington suburb of Newtown.
About 7.15pm on Saturday police were called to a property on Mansfield Street.
Detective Inspector Nick Pritchard says a scene examination is due to conclude on Monday, and the post-mortem was taking place.
"Members of the Newtown community may notice an increased police presence in the area while enquiries are ongoing."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Nelson property owner jailed for 20 months after 'kidnapping' meter reader
By Tracy Neal, Open Justice reporter of Paul Hogarty took the meter reader's car keys. Photo: 123RF A power company meter reader "kidnapped" by an aggressive property owner says the event has "projected a darkness on her everyday life". The woman, in her 60s, was left terrified by the ordeal that occurred at a rural property near Nelson where she arrived to read the meter in June 2023. She was confronted by the angry owner, Paul Hogarty, who took her car keys, which meant she was unable to leave the site. While it was not heard in Nelson District Court how he managed to get the woman's keys, the court was told she was stuck in her car at the property for about 40 minutes as a result. During that time, Hogarty had refused to give them back and kept making demands of her in a threatening and intimidating manner. Today, Hogarty was sentenced to 20 months in prison on charges he denied, including kidnapping, after a jury found him guilty in January this year. He represented himself at the trial with help from a court-appointed counsel and was also found guilty of unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle, intimidation and resisting police. The meter reader had gone to Hogarty's property on the afternoon of June 21. It was a job she had done for many years, Judge Jo Rielly said. After being threatened by Hogarty and having her keys taken off her, she remained in her vehicle because she was afraid of what might happen if she got out. "The words you used to attack and intimidate her traumatised her," Judge Rielly said. The woman told Hogarty she was calling the police but this did not appear to concern him. Judge Rielly described him as someone with "very entrenched personal beliefs about the rights of people in society". When the police arrived, Hogarty, a man in his 70s, then resisted being arrested. "It was abundantly clear that the events were a great surprise to her and caused extreme distress," Judge Rielly said. "She had no way of knowing what would happen to her." Judge Rielly said the victim now suffered extreme anxiety, and felt that Hogarty had taken away her right to feel safe. She now dreaded going to work and had suffered financially as a result. Reading from the woman's victim impact statement, Judge Rielly said the victim wanted Hogarty to know, and believe, that what he had done was unacceptable. Judge Rielly said that some of what Hogarty said at his trial implied that he regretted his actions, even though he had not expressed that directly. She agreed with the Crown on a two-year prison starting point on the lead charge of kidnapping. Hogarty was granted a four-month credit for his personal circumstances, which included a lack of any previous convictions, resulting in a sentence of 20 months in prison. He was granted leave to apply for a substituted sentence of home detention if he chose to put forward an address. Judge Rielly said it was sad she had little choice but to sentence a man of Hogarty's age to a term of imprisonment because he failed to co-operate with the court process. She said the Crown had made it clear early on that it was not opposed to an alternative sentence, and that an electronically monitored sentence would sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offending. Judge Rielly said that had always been her preference. However, Hogarty had made it clear on "more than one occasion" that he would not provide an address. "I have tried to reason with you about that but you have maintained throughout that you do not consent to providing an address so it leaves me no alternative but to sentence you to 20 months in prison," Judge Rielly said. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
More denials from mushroom murder-accused
Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Those were Erin Patterson's responses to the prosecution's final three questions in her murder trial. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC rounded out her marathon cross-examination on Thursday with three suggestions: that Patterson deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms in 2023, deliberately included them in the beef Wellington she served her former in-laws and did so intending to kill them. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to the murders of her estranged husband Simon's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, 70, his aunt Heather Wilkinson, 66, and the attempted murder of Heather's husband Ian. She denies deliberately poisoning her lunch guests on July 29, 2023 when she served them meals that included death cap mushrooms. Patterson was accused of more lies on her eighth and final day in the witness box at the Supreme Court in Morwell in regional Victoria. The 50-year-old was asked about her evidence that she dehydrated dried mushrooms she had bought from an Asian grocer before adding them to the beef Wellingtons. She agreed she never said this to anyone at the time and didn't mention putting the fungi into the dehydrator when she earlier admitted adding them to the lunch. "I suggest this is another lie you made up on the spot," Dr Rogers said, accusing Patterson of hedging her bets to try to make it sound like there were multiple possible sources for the death cap mushrooms. "Incorrect," the accused killer responded. The prosecutor also suggested Patterson lied about taking diarrhoea treatment following the lunch after the 50-year-old earlier claimed one reason she went to hospital was because she thought they would have something stronger. Patterson agreed she did not tell medical staff at the hospital she had taken the medication, maintaining no one asked. "If you were looking for something stronger, you would've told medical staff you had already taken Imodium and it didn't work," Dr Rogers said. "I don't agree," Patterson responded. She was also questioned about her evidence that she had to stop by the side of a road and go to the toilet in the bushes while driving her son to a flying lesson, something the boy denied during his testimony. "I suggest he did not recall you stopping by the bushes on the side of the road because it did not happen ... I suggest this is another lie you told the jury about how you managed the trip to Tyabb," Dr Rogers said. "Disagree," Patterson said. The mother-of-two said she had served her children reheated beef Wellington with the mushroom and pastry scraped off while she had a bowl of cereal the night after the deadly lunch. But Dr Rogers referred to her children's evidence, in which they suggested their mother had the same meal of leftovers the night after the fatal lunch. One of Patterson's children said she "ate the same as us", but Patterson told the court they were incorrect and denied eating the leftover food. She also denied that she "deliberately concealed" one of her phones, referred to at the trial as phone A, from police when they searched her house. Patterson said she switched from phone A to another, referred to as phone B, because the former was "not cutting it anymore". But the prosecution pointed to records that showed regular use from a SIM card in phone A until days after the mushroom lunch. Patterson said she conducted a factory reset of phone B because she wanted to use it and that was the phone she gave police. "I suggest to you that there was nothing wrong with phone A and this is another lie," Dr Rogers said. "Disagree," Patterson responded. Under defence barrister Colin Mandy SC's re-examination, Patterson became emotional as she talked about her daughter's ballet lessons and son's flying lesson. With all evidence in the trial concluded, Justice Christopher Beale told jurors about discussions they could expect before dismissing them for the day.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Concern Mark Lundy parole board condition impinges on freedom of speech
Mark Lundy Photo: RNZ Mark Lundy hasn't said or written a word publicly since he was released from prison early last month. That's because the man twice convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in Palmerston North in August 2000 cannot speak to the media, post on social media or blog about his case. Given he proclaims his innocence, there is concern this Parole Board condition impinges on his right to freedom of speech. He's on a life sentence, so potentially could be subjected to conditions for decades. When the Parole Board raised the possibility of banning Lundy from giving media interviews , his response was clear: "I'd welcome it with open arms," he told board members. Mark Lundy was released from prison last month. Photo: RNZ / Daniel Jones He said when he was on bail ahead of his 2015 retrial, reporters swarmed his street and accosted him. Private investigator Tim McKinnel said the parole condition not to speak publicly took away a person's most important tool - their own voice. "I think these conditions that gag or muzzle prisoners who come out of prison, who are maintaining their innocence, are really problematic," he said. "I think there is a real risk that comes from preventing people from speaking out on their own behalf." Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. That it was the board raising the matter with Lundy, rather than something he brought up, was concerning. "I think that's quite different than having that question put to them by the parole board: 'We are contemplating a condition where you cannot speak publicly about your case, what do you think about that?' "In the context of a parole hearing, you're going to be a pretty brave prisoner to push back on the Parole Board against those types of questions or scenarios." Gail Maney was acquitted for her role in Deane Fuller-Sandys' death. Photo: Jason Dorday / Stuff In some wrongful conviction cases, such as Gail Maney , her public advocacy played a huge role in proving she was not involved in killing Deane Fuller-Sandys in the late 1980s, McKinnel said. "Look at the history of wrongful conviction cases in New Zealand. There is scarcely a case when the media haven't played a fundamentally important role in exposing those miscarriages of justice. "If you take away the voice of the prisoner in arguing for themselves, I think you're at risk of preventing some of these cases emerging." McKinnel is known for his work in helping expose Teina Pora 's wrongful conviction for killing Susan Burdett. Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Pora was also banned from talking to media when on parole before his conviction was quashed. A progress parole hearing heard he was grateful to live without media intrusion. In a statement, the Parole Board said it had on rare occasions imposed media restrictions when granting parole. It did so in Lundy's case to protect him, after he expressed concerns about media interest in him, and to take into account victims' concerns about news reports from when he was on bail awaiting retrial. Media law expert Steven Price said the restriction on Lundy was wide ranging. "It's not just that he can't speak to the media, he can't go on social media either, and he can't go on webpages his parole officer says he can't go on. "They're pretty wide restrictions and they certainly affect his freedom of speech." The Parole Board could impose restrictions for reasons such as reducing the chance of reoffending, but it couldn't be more restrictive than necessary. Photo: Supplied Price agreed with McKinnel that people up for parole, such as Lundy, were likely to agree with any condition the board suggested. "[Lundy's] been convicted twice of murder in extremely controversial circumstances and he can't talk about that to the media. We can't ask him about that. "We can't ask him about his experiences in prison. He can't even go on social media and join a Facebook group to support social media or the All Blacks." Price said the board should have tailored restrictions on Lundy's speech to limit what would genuinely be harmful, but he acknowledged it's a difficult situation. Koi Tū research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis said he hoped the Parole Board would review Lundy's restriction at some point, given its implications for free speech. "It's the wider principle that I think as a society we need to safeguard. The rights under the Bill of Rights Act were hard won, hard fought for, and need to be protected." Media had a right to be concerned at such conditions, Ellis said. The Parole Board noted that in its decision, it said the following: "On balance, this board is satisfied that Mr Lundy will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole on strict conditions designed to address his risk as well as assist in his reintegration and address victim concerns." Although Lundy's parole conditions were imposed for life, he could apply to have his restrictions varied at any time, and he would have a monitoring hearing to check on his progress in October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
