David Benbow, 54, denied killing Michael McGrath in the Christchurch suburb of Halswell in 2017.
The Crown alleged Benbow murdered the 49-year-old after finding out he was in a relationship with his partner of 17 years Joanna Green.
McGrath was supposed to visit Benbow about 9am on May 22, 2017, to help him move some railway sleepers. Benbow said he never showed up, however, the Crown said the sleepers were a “ruse” and that once he arrived Benbow killed him with his .22 rifle and later disposed of his body. McGrath’s body and the firearm have never been found.
Meanwhile, the defence said McGrath never showed up and that Benbow was in no better position than anyone to say what happened to him.
Benbow pleaded not guilty during a seven-week trial at the High Court in Christchurch earlier this year. No verdict was reached.
A re-trial began in August. On Monday, the jury retired to consider its verdict.
Today, after 18 hours of deliberations the jury returned a guilty verdict.
Benbow’s mother let out a loud gasp before uttering “no”.
He began by saying the Crown acknowledged it was a circumstantial case, with no body to examine, no murder weapon, no DNA and no confessions.
However, he said the case against Benbow was “compelling and it’s decisive”.
A week before McGrath disappeared, Benbow turned up at his Checketts Ave home three times, first to ask for assistance in moving items around his section, then to invite him for dinner, and then on May 21, to make an appointment for McGrath to visit him at 9am on May 22 to move some railway sleepers.
Benbow would later say McGrath never showed up at his home that morning. However, Hawes cited witnesses who spoke at the trial who said “he was a man who would do what he said he was going to do”.
He asked the jury to “think long and hard” about Benbow’s missing .22 rifle.
“A firearm is not like a different type of lethal weapon. It comes with specific legal obligations. He had one firearm, according to those who knew him he was conscientious about it, this cannot simply be brushed over... there is no adequate explanation as to what might’ve happened to that firearm other than Mr Benbow disposed of it himself.”
He said it was not the Crown’s case that this was the “perfect murder”.
“Mr Benbow is a careful and deliberate man but everyone makes mistakes … He’s hidden his body well and utilised an outdoor scene to his advantage, kept things very simple and spoken to nobody about it. Nevertheless, I suggest the facts speak for themselves and prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.”
To find the charge of murder proven the Crown needed to prove five fundamental matters, Hawes said - that McGrath is dead, that he did not take his life, he had not died in an accident, that Benbow caused his death and that he intended to kill McGrath.
Hawes said McGrath’s disappearance was not explained by anything other than foul play.
Benbow’s lead defence counsel, Kirsten Gray, then closed their case to the jury.
She said the Crown’s case was based on a “theory”.
“A theory that was first thought up by Joanna Green, the theory that Mr Benbow had done something to Mr McGrath. And it’s a theory that is desperately searching for evidence,” she said.
“In this case, you’re not here to solve the disappearance of Mr McGrath. You are here to determine beyond reasonable doubt whether or not the Crown has proven its case against Mr Benbow.”
Gray referred to the Crown suggesting the case was like strands of a rope, that once they come together make a rope so strong that you can rely on it beyond reasonable doubt.
“Be very cautious about that submission. If you look at the strands of the rope in detail you might be left scratching your head. The strength of the rope members of the jury is your domain, it’s for you to decide. But you need to ask yourselves at the outset do you accept that this is a rope, or as I suggest is it just a pile of tattered threads, a house of cards not capable of withstanding any serious probing.”
She said the jury had more evidence that police focused only on Benbow than evidence of anything else, citing the 8000 hours they spent searching a dump compared to the 800 hours looking for McGrath.
“This doesn’t amount to a rope and it certainly doesn’t get you to the high standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
“In my submission, the Crown case is a house of cards built on shakey foundations which if you give it any real probing will simply fall over and if you drill into what is being alleged then things don’t make sense and the improbability of their entire case is glaringly obvious.”
She put the evidence into three categories - evidence of nothing which she called “red flag evidence”, and “lens evidence” that could be viewed either way depending on what lens you look through and actual evidence that the jury could use and rely on.
Gray said there was “very little” in the case that even began to resemble real evidence.
“If you even begin to scratch the surface of this evidence it becomes clear it doesn’t get you anywhere near establishing that Mr Benbow was involved in a homicide.”
She cited the lack of forensic evidence, given the Crown had at least three crime scenes - Benbow’s home, his car and McGrath’s home.
“No blood, no DNA, nothing of any forensic interest.”
Benbow, Gray said, did not have a motive nor the means or opportunity to commit a murder.
To believe Benbow had the capacity to commit the “perfect murder” was “farcical”, she said.
Gray said the police had “tunnel vision”, and worked off a “suspect-driven theory”.
She concluded by telling the jury this was a case with “no body, there is no weapon, absolutely nothing of forensic evidence implicating Mr Benbow.”
