Montgomerie, 58, has been on trial since last week, accused of wounding with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The complainant, who also works in the property development industry, cannot currently be named because of a pending request for permanent name suppression.<\/p>\n
A cocktail party at a Westmere property turned into a crime scene in April 2021 after Auckland property developer Andrew Montgomerie allegedly smashed a broken wine glass against another man’s neck during a heated exchange. Montgomerie is on trial, accused of wounding the other man. Photo \/ NZ Police<\/p>\n
Montgomerie acknowledged at the outset of the trial that he caused the injury that resulted in the man needing surgery at Auckland Hospital. But it was an accident so unexpected that he didn\u2019t even realise it had happened, the Ponsonby resident has said.<\/p>\n
In the witness box today, the defendant recalled the other man approaching him and saying hello. He was surprised the other man wanted to shake hands, given the rumours the man had been spreading for years, he acknowledged saying aloud.<\/p>\n
Montgomerie wasn\u2019t resentful about the rumours regarding him cheating contractors, he said, suggesting he blew the comments off because \u201ceverybody knows what [the complainant] is like\u201d. But \u201cit seemed an opportune time to bring it up\u201d, he explained.<\/p>\n
The two then traded insults, which Montgomerie said he thought of at the time as \u201clight ribbing\u201d and \u201cbanter\u201d rather than an argument.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe was looking a little bit agitated,\u201d Montgomerie said, explaining that he turned and walked several steps away because \u201cit wasn\u2019t appropriate\u201d to make a scene in front of a house full of friends. \u201cHe was following me, and when I stopped and turned around he was in my face.\u201d<\/p>\n
A cocktail party at a Westmere property turned into a crime scene in April 2021 after Auckland property developer Andrew Montgomerie allegedly smashed a broken wine glass against another man’s neck during a heated exchange. Montgomerie is on trial, accused of wounding the other man. Photo \/ NZ Police<\/p>\n
Jurors heard testimony from the complainant last week in which he said he was the one who started to walk away before Montgomerie told him to turn around and say the rumours to his face. Montgomerie denied that happened.<\/p>\n
As the two faced off the second time, Montgomerie said he could see the other man tense up.<\/p>\n
\u201cI could see his right arm begin to move and I … defensively and instantly raised my right arm,\u201d he recalled to jurors, explaining that the other man\u2019s hand raised \u201cmaybe a couple of hundred millimetres\u201d before Montgomerie sprang into action. \u201cIt looked like he was going to throw a punch at me and it was a defensive blocking move.\u201d<\/p>\n
He repeatedly described the incident as having happened in a confusing \u201csplit second\u201d. The other man, he said, \u201clooks at me a little bit longer and walks away\u201d without saying a word.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was no indication that I hit him, that I connected, that I had injured him in any way,\u201d he insisted. \u201cI didn\u2019t see him hold his neck. I was standing there trying to figure out what happened. I was very surprised.\u201d<\/p>\n
The defendant said he didn\u2019t ever remember the glass breaking and had no idea his hand also had been cut until he returned home. But he suggested the \u201cflash, upmarket glass\u201d used by the caterers at the party was \u201clight and fine\u201d and could have shattered easily.<\/p>\n
Andrew Montgomerie consults with defence lawyer Ron Mansfield, KC, at the start of his wounding trial in the Auckland District Court. Photo \/ Alyse Wright <\/p>\n
A short time later, a caterer came up to Montgomerie and said he would clean up the glass shards. Something was mentioned about a \u201ckerfuffle in the kitchen\u201d, Montgomerie said, but he still had no inkling it was related to what had just happened.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe didn\u2019t want any fuss,\u201d he said of the sudden decision to leave the party. \u201cWe were happy to leave.\u201d<\/p>\n
The couple didn\u2019t notice the crowd starting to gather around the other man as they stepped out and didn\u2019t hear the other party-goer yelling for them to stop as they walked down the street towards their Uber, the defendant and his partner both insisted.<\/p>\n
He didn\u2019t do anything that night when hearing about the \u201cchampagne shanking\u201d at the same party he had just left but decided to call a friend who is a lawyer the next day, he said, because of some of the \u201coutrageous allegations\u201d he was seeing in the media.<\/p>\n
\u201cI knew I didn\u2019t drink champagne,\u201d he explained. \u201cI\u2019m thinking about the incident, the accident and how it was being made a lot bigger and sensationalised in the press, and that was pretty annoying.<\/p>\n
\u201c… It was a pretty awful experience. I was somewhat bewildered. It just wasn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n
Montgomerie\u2019s evidence was broken into numerous sections divided by 10-minute breaks, and the lights were dimmed near the witness box. That was because he had suffered an unrelated head injury in a fall some time after the 2021 party, defence lawyer Ron Mansfield, KC, told jurors.<\/p>\n
A cocktail party at a Westmere property turned into a crime scene in April 2021 after Auckland property developer Andrew Montgomerie allegedly smashed a broken wine glass against another man’s neck during a heated exchange. Montgomerie is on trial, accused of wounding the other man. Photo \/ NZ Police<\/p>\n
During cross-examination of the defendant, Crown prosecutor Ruby van Boheemen suggested that many aspects of Montgomerie\u2019s account were either inconsistent with his previous statements or simply made \u201cabsolutely no sense\u201d.<\/p>\n
For instance, she suggested, if Montgomerie truly intended to block a blow from the other man\u2019s right hand it doesn\u2019t make sense that the left side of the other man\u2019s neck was injured. It also would have made more sense, she suggested, for Montgomerie to use his empty left hand to block a blow thought to be coming from his left side.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis all happened in a microsecond,\u201d Montgomerie replied.<\/p>\n
Van Boheemen also suggested it beggared belief that the man\u2019s injury \u2013 2.5cm deep and about 5cm long \u2013 wouldn\u2019t have been noticed before Montgomerie left the party. It also made no sense, she said, that Montgomerie wouldn\u2019t have noticed his own hand injury from the shattered glass.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt wasn\u2019t accidental, Mr Montgomerie. It was an intentional and forceful strike to [the other man\u2019s] neck, wasn\u2019t it?\u201d she asked. \u201cYou aimed at [his] neck with your glass, didn\u2019t you, when he wasn\u2019t looking?\u201d<\/p>\n
Montgomerie denied it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy would I want to hurt him?\u201d he asked in return, reminding the prosecutor of the party full of peers.<\/p>\n
Van Boheemen pointed to a text message Montgomerie sent another friend the next day in which he explained: \u201cThe guy punched me and came off second best and is now crying about it.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said his story changed again several days later when Montgomerie gave a typed seven-sentence statement to police stating: \u201cAs I was walking away he threw a punch towards my head.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe walked back towards a group of people,\u201d the statement continued. \u201cI then realised my right hand was bleeding badly and realised I had a spirits glass in my hand which had smashed.\u201d<\/p>\n
It didn\u2019t match today\u2019s testimony, van Boheemen noted, that there was no actual punch and that Montgomerie wasn\u2019t aware of his own injury until after the party.<\/p>\n
\u201cLook, I\u2019m not much of a texter,\u201d the defendant said, conceding later that the description of a thrown punch was \u201cindelicately put\u201d.<\/p>\n
The signed police statement, which he gave instead of a full interview, was drafted by his lawyer at the time and was intended only to be a \u201chigh-level\u201d abbreviation of events rather than a full account of what happened, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou oversold his actions to police?\u201d the prosecutor asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s slightly different, but subtly,\u201d he responded.<\/p>\n
Van Boheemen pressed on.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt would have been very clear to you after the incident that something was seriously wrong with [the complainant],\u201d she said. \u201cThat\u2019s why you left the party, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n
\u201cA suggestion otherwise is just absolutely ridiculous, isn\u2019t it?\u201d<\/p>\n
Montgomerie, appearing to lose patience, disagreed. He had already answered the question, he said.<\/p>\n
Judge Paul Murray told jurors that they were likely to begin deliberations tomorrow, after closing addresses.<\/p>\n