Judge tells jurors to ignore age in trial of four teens accused of killing US student
In Auckland, a judge instructed the jury to evaluate each defendant individually and to treat circumstantial evidence as a combined test of strength rather than a single weak link.
By Aiko Soto ·
Jurors in Auckland were instructed on Wednesday to set aside their feelings about the ages of the four teenagers on trial for the murder of an American student. The four defendants, who have pleaded not guilty to the killing and aggravated robbery, have been under examination at the High Court for three weeks.
Kyle Whorrall was attacked and killed at a bus stop in the Meadowbank area of Auckland on April 19, 2025. A fifth teenager involved in the incident has already pleaded guilty to both counts, a conviction that Justice Simon Mount cited as objective proof that a robbery and a murder took place.
Mount emphasized that the jury must not view the four defendants as a single unit. He explained that while some evidence, such as CCTV footage of the vehicle, applies to all four, other testimony is admissible only against specific individuals. Each defendant faces two primary charges, but the jury can return verdicts of guilty for murder or aggravated robbery, or lesser convictions for manslaughter or robbery.
The judge acknowledged that jurors might feel sympathy for the defendants due to their youth or shock at the severity of Whorrall's injuries. He told them to look at the evidence dispassionately. He also addressed the reliability of witnesses, noting that an eyewitness who briefly saw the victim from a moving car in poor light initially mistook Whorrall for a woman, yet key parts of that account were corroborated by other facts.
Particular scrutiny was directed at the testimony of a stepfather, who Mount said had described himself as a "compulsive liar" and "New Zealand's biggest liar." The prosecution acknowledged the witness was generally neither credible nor reliable, citing his history of dishonesty convictions. Mount noted the stepfather had motives to offer false evidence, including a desire for favorable treatment from police while on a final bail warning and personal anger toward his stepson.
Mount described the Crown's case as largely circumstantial. He used the metaphor of a rope to explain that while any single piece of evidence might not be sufficient to support the weight of the case, the combined strands might be. He cautioned that a strand of evidence supporting one defendant might not form part of the rope for another.
The jury will now deliberate on the separate verdicts for the four teenagers, weighing the specific evidence applicable to each against the standard of proof required for the two sets of charges.
