Crown Prosecutor Challenges Self-Defence Claim in Murder Trial

In a high-profile murder trial at the High Court in Christchurch, the Crown has challenged the self-defence argument presented by the accused, James Holder. Prosecutor Kerry White asserted that the claim was both unfounded and illogical. The trial revolves around the fatal shooting of David Bridgewater, a father of two, who was shot in the abdomen outside a property in Aranui on January 4, 2024.

During her closing remarks, White described Holder’s actions as indicative of “murderous intent.” She emphasized that Holder had a loaded firearm in his possession for over an hour before the incident, characterizing this as “chilling behaviour.” White detailed how Bridgewater had attended the Juicy Fest music festival earlier that day and had returned to Holder’s home with acquaintances to acquire methamphetamine.

The prosecutor highlighted the escalating situation, noting that Bridgewater had been asked to leave the property multiple times due to his intoxicated state. White stated, “The defendant was clearly the predominant aggressor throughout much of his account of what happened. He was armed with a loaded firearm.”

As the confrontation unfolded outside, evidence presented during the trial suggested physical altercations occurred between Bridgewater and Holder. White pointed out the contradictions in Holder’s narrative, stating, “Mr Bridgewater turned around and saw the firearm in Mr Holder’s hand and said, ‘Oh, you pull a gun on me.’ Even after seeing the gun, Mr Holder said Mr Bridgewater asked to stay.”

In addition, expert testimony indicated that Bridgewater would have died within one to three minutes after being shot. White argued that Holder’s description of events following the shooting lacked credibility. She raised concerns regarding attempts to conceal evidence, specifically mentioning that Holder’s partner, Leanne Crighton, had destroyed a security camera that could have provided crucial footage.

“Why destroy the footage that would exonerate you if, as Mr Holder claims, he was acting in self-defence?” White questioned. She suggested these actions indicated Holder’s guilty state of mind, asserting, “It would be like gold.”

In response, defence attorney John Wayne Howell countered the Crown’s assertions, claiming that Bridgewater had exhibited aggressive behaviour, exacerbated by his intoxication. “He’d had enough of being told what to do. He had enough of being told to leave,” Howell stated.

Howell suggested that after leaving Holder’s property, Bridgewater confronted Holder and Crighton with a metal pole, prompting Holder to discharge the firearm as a warning rather than an act of intent to kill. “It was a fast-moving, dynamic situation,” he argued.

The defence attorney also contended that Holder’s actions after the shooting demonstrated panic rather than premeditated intent. “Holder had just fired an illegal firearm on the street. His mind was racing. He was in shock. He was panicking,” Howell explained.

Justice Lisa Preston is expected to provide a summary of the case for the jury, who will soon determine the outcome of this significant trial. As the legal proceedings continue, both the prosecution and defence have laid out compelling narratives that will influence the jury’s decision in this tragic case.