By Adam Burns of RNZ
Arguments that a Christchurch man was killed in self-defence are untrue and illogical, a Crown prosecutor says.
Closing arguments in the murder trial of James Holder have been heard in the High Court at Christchurch in front of Justice Lisa Preston.
Father-of-two David Bridgewater was fatally shot in the abdomen outside a property in Aranui, Christchurch on January 4 2024.
Holder has pleaded not guilty to the murder, arguing he acted in self-defence.
During her closing address on Wednesday, Crown prosecutor Kerry White told jurors Holder acted with “murderous intent” on that fateful night.
“Holder’s intention cannot be divorced from the fact that he sat with a loaded firearm in the garage for that hour and 20 minutes or so beforehand.
“This is chilling behaviour any way you look at it,” White said.
Bridgewater had been at the Juicy Fest music festival in the hours prior to his death.
Afterwards, he travelled to Holder’s Aranui house in Carisbrooke Street with some people who knew Holder, to pick up some methamphetamine.
They left, but later returned to Holder’s house, where they all hung out in the garage.
The defence argued Bridgewater’s behaviour was rude, obnoxious and dangerous.
He was later asked to leave.
White said there were a number of problems with the defendant’s grounds for self-defence.
“The defendant was clearly the predominant aggressor throughout much of his account of what happened. He was armed with a loaded firearm,” she said.
She also explained there were inconsistencies in Holder’s account of the night, alongside contradictions with other evidence presented during the trial.
An intoxicated Bridgewater was asked to leave the house several times, before finally doing so, White said.
“He was out of there,” she said.
As Bridgewater was leaving, he was followed outside by Holder and his partner Leanne Crighton.
Evidence heard in court suggested a physical altercation had taken place on the street.
The defendant’s claims that Bridgewater was the aggressor, not Holder, were dubious, White said.
“It was two against one,” she said.
“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.”
She then said Holder’s account of what happened after the shot was fired “did not have a ring of truth”.
Expert evidence heard earlier in the trial proposed Bridgewater would have died between one to three minutes after being shot in the abdomen.
White said the defendant’s claims of a further physical altercation after a shot was fired showed Holder had lied.
Efforts to conceal and destroy evidence also raised further suspicion on claims of self-defence, she said.
The trial heard that Crighton had destroyed an outdoor security camera.
“Why destroy the footage that would exonerate you if, as Mr Holder claims, he was acting in self-defence. If he was truly acting in self-defence, it would be vital to protect that footage,” she said.
“It would be like gold.
“I suggest that they show that Mr Holder has a guilty mind, knowing that he did not act in self-defence when he shot Mr Bridgewater.”
‘He panicked’
Defence lawyers for the accused have countered the Crown’s case during closing arguments, submitting his client was forced to defend himself.
John Wayne Howell told jurors Bridgewater had begun to “simmer” when he was at Holder’s home.
“He’d had enough of being told what to do. He had enough of being told to leave,” he said.
“The alcohol in his system, the methamphetamine in his system had caught up with him. And he responded with aggression.”
Howell proposed he had shown to be a credible witness by being upfront on certain matters, including attempts to hide evidence.
“When it was put to him by the Crown that he was the aggressor, he accepted that. He didn’t seek to deny it,” he said.
It was put to jurors that after Bridgewater left the property and hopped in his car, he attacked Holder and Crighton with a metal pole.
The shot fired at Bridgewater was “as a warning” and Holder did not intend to kill him, Howell said.
“It was a fast-moving, dynamic situation.”
Howell argued that Holder’s actions following the shooting showed he panicked, but did not prove intent.
“Holder had just fired an illegal firearm on the street. His mind was racing. He was in shock. He was panicking,” he said.
Justice Preston is due to sum up the case for the jury on Thursday.
