Ewen Macdonald is a scumbag. Is that evidence that he killed Scott Guy?

John Edwards


Journalist and media trainer Brian Edwards (no relation) thinks that the jury in Ewen Macdonald's murder trial should have been told about Macdonald's guilty pleas to unrelated charges (read: Why the jury should have been privy to all the facts about Ewen Macdonald).

The jury in the trial heard that Macdonald had pleaded guilty to setting fire to the Guy's house, and to trashing and graffiting their new house. 

That in itself is an exception to the old strict rule that evidence of previous convictions is inadmissible. 

Why would that be?

Because the role of the prosecution is to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the charge before the court.  Information about things a defendant did at a different time, in respect of different people, for different reasons is not evidence of the matter before the court. 

The evidence of the offending towards the Guys might have supported the Police contention that Macdonald had a motive to kill, as he already had a motive to do other harm to that family.

Macdonald's guilty pleas to spilling milk on another farm, burning down a whare, and with an accomplice, killing 19 calves were suppressed, and not disclosed in the murder trial. 

Why was that? 

Because they were not relevant to it. 

Knowledge of those matters would not have assisted the jury in coming to a decision about whether Ewen Macdonald killed Scott Guy. 

The details of those charges seem quite appalling.

Had the jury been made aware of those charges It might have caused them to "gloss over" deficiencies in the prosecution case, because Macdonald had been clearly proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be a scumbag. 

Problem is, Macdonald was not on trial for being a scumbag. 

He was on trial for the murder, with a shotgun, of his brother-in-law at specific time, in a specific place.

Prior to the Evidence Act 2006 there was a very strict rule against evidence of prior criminal convictions except for the purposes of sentencing.  That was liberalised in the 2006 Act.  A general principle was enacted in s.7:

Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible

(1) All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is:

(a) inadmissible under this Act or any other Act; or

(b) excluded under this Act or any other Act.

(2) Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding.

(3) Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.

Edwards finds it

"... hard to believe that these facts were not relevant at least to Macdonald’s state of mind or to his nature. His actions, and in particular the killing of the calves, showed him to be a vengeful person capable of violence."

Macdonald's "nature" was not on trial.  The evidence of the offending against the another farmers' calves could not have met the "relevance" test.  It did not prove or disprove anything that was of consequence to the determination of the murder charge.

Section 43 of the Evidence Act deals directly with "propensity evidence" (that is, evidence which while not about the particular matter for which the person is charged, might demonstrate a propensity on the part of the accused to act in a particular way). 

There is a list of things the judge must take into account in deciding whether or not to admit such evidence but the judge must ultimately determine whether the "probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant".

Evidence that a farmer had killed calves by donging them on the head in much the same way as occurs at the meatworks would undoubtedly have had a considerably prejudicial effect on the jury, while not really illuminating anything required to be proved by the prosecution.  Is the fact that a farmer kills calves evidence that he killed or was capable of killing his brother-in-law?

After the Brad Shipton et al Police sex offending trials a few years ago, in which the media was prevented from reporting, and juries were prevented from knowing about other offences the accused had been convicted of  the Minister of Justice asked the Law Commission to consider the circumstances in which conviction history could be introduced.

In a 2008 report entitled "Disclosure to Court of Defendants' Previous Convictions, Similar Offending and Bad Character" the Law Commission closely examined the current practice, and whether the law needed to be reformed.  After a thorough two year examination, it concluded that it did not.

The Law Commission reckons that judges are best placed to weigh up what will assist versus what might pointlessly contaminate a jury's consideration of the prosecution's case, and that the liberalised Evidence Act gives them plenty of scope to do so. I'm inclined to agree with them.

John Edwards is a Wellington barrister. He blogs at www.johnedwards.co.nz

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

13 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Comments on this story are subject to moderation and will not appear until reviewed by NBR staff.


It does not prove he commited murder but it proves he has the character to be capable of murder. Anyone who is capable of such intentional cruelty to animals tends to have the prerequisit for cruelty to humans.


I assume you're referring to the killing of the calves? I wonder if this is actually considered cruel in farming circles. I have asked a couple of farmers who have said a hammer blow to the head of a calf is not a cruel death although as a "townie", I would disagree. I don't think all the calves that MacDonald attacked in this way actually died but my point is, maybe it isn't considered a cruel practise and if it isn't, your point would not be valid.


I don't believe that had the suppressed evidence been allowed it would have altered the verdict. In my view it merely strengthened the case that Macdonald could have done it but failed to show that he did do it. The missing link is the impossibility of proving no-one else could have done it.


I think in certain instances that evidence of other past crimes should be allowed into a case, in this instance the previous damage and killing of animals was highly relevant to the case. It shows a clear timeline of events and escalation of violence.


The jury had a dilemma, one caused by a prosecution that, among other things, showed the jury they couldn't count treads on a boot print and marry it to a size!!!
The prosecution performance was abysmal and deserves at least a peer review.


The police aren't carrying out any more investigative work as to who the killer could be. They have resigned themselves to having uncovered the killer, but it comes without endorsement.


Still all about the rights of criminals to have the wheels of justice stacked in their favor, rather than the rights of victims.


In my somewhat limited court experience it becomes a game, bit like a drama production. A play on words with a slight twist added to events, a tear here and there and of course a clever lawyer or prosecutor can make black look white.
The police seek a conviction at any cost but a conviction in many cases has little to do with guilt. It means the police won the game on that particular day.
Talk to any prison officer. They know whos guilty.


Surely the character of the accused is relevent to the case at hand and thus the judge should have permitted this info.


In relation too the the correct verdict, Macdonlds life after his release will be a worse sentence in the community. No body will touch him he can not leave the country . The police will have strict supervision over him weather court approved or not. He will be in a worse place then hell. If I was Macdonald I would beg for mercy by way off fessing up and plead guilty. If I was Mcdonald i would rather be inside for safety and do the time.


Not guilty but not innocent is my verdict. Why did the prosecution proceed on such flimsy evidence. They must have known their case was weak. Time was on their side. Why not hold off and see what developed out of the "calf " and damage convictions?


Without substantive and compelling evidence, the police should had let all the charges of wilful damage and animal cruelty charges proceed. Then, once they were in the public arena, proceed with the prosecution. But we aren't talking about the sharpest knives in the kitchen drawer, when it comes to our cops. I mean, they have trouble openning the boot of a car, after all.


Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7744 -0.0034 -0.44%
AUD 0.9521 0.0005 0.05%
EUR 0.6328 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.4964 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 6.0049 -0.0276 -0.46%
JPY 92.6340 0.0890 0.10%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1198.3 8.880 2014-12-18T00:
Oil Brent 59.3 0.110 2014-12-18T00:
Oil Nymex 54.4 -2.250 2014-12-18T00:
Silver Index 15.9 0.006 2014-12-18T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5518.5 5545.0 5518.5 0.17%
NASDAQ 4752.6 4765.8 4748.4 0.25%
DAX 9901.3 9901.3 9811.1 -0.06%
DJI 17778.0 17830.6 17778.2 0.10%
FTSE 6466.0 6566.9 6466.0 1.32%
HKSE 23158.3 23189.6 22832.2 1.25%
NI225 17511.0 17621.4 17210.0 2.39%