Key Takeaways
- Selwyn Robson, a patched member of the Black Power gang, was fatally stabbed in the neck on 6 May 2025 in a sleepout he shared with his partner, 33‑year‑old Green.
- The Crown alleges Green intended to kill Robson or acted with reckless indifference, charging her with murder; the defence contends the stabbing was in self‑defence against Robson’s violence.
- Green’s statements to friends and family after the attack varied—she admitted “I’ve f***ed up,” claimed Robson kicked her in the head, and said she “flipped her switch,” suggesting both remorse and attempts to justify the act.
- Police interviews the day after the killing showed Green giving conflicting accounts of how she was injured, which the Crown used to argue her response was excessive and not justified self‑defence.
- A medical examination revealed no injuries on Green, undermining her claim of having been assaulted and supporting the prosecution’s view that the stabbing was disproportionate.
- Both sides asked the jury to set aside biases—whether sympathy for Robson’s violent past or prejudice against Green’s gang‑associated boyfriend—and to base a verdict solely on the evidence presented.
- The trial is ongoing, with the jury yet to deliberate on whether Green’s actions constitute murder or lawful self‑defence.
Case Overview
The High Court in Auckland is hearing the murder trial of 33‑year‑old Green, who is charged with killing her partner, Selwyn Robson, in May 2025. Robson, a patched member of the Black Power gang, lived in a sleepout on a large property in Manurewa, South Auckland, where Green had been staying. The Crown alleges that Green stabbed Robson in the neck during a volatile argument, while the defence maintains the act was lawful self‑defence against Robson’s violence. The trial began with opening statements from both sides, setting the stage for a fact‑intensive examination of the couple’s relationship, the events of the fatal day, and the subsequent actions of Green.
Crown’s Opening Argument
Crown lawyer Aysser Al‑Janabi opened by outlining what Green told friends and family about the incident. She said Green confessed to close family friend Sharon Manaia, “Namesake, I’ve f***ed up,” and displayed a face speckled with blood that resembled freckles. Al‑Janabi emphasized that Green’s admissions—ranging from remorse to claims that Robson had kicked her in the head—were inconsistent and pointed to a conscious decision to use lethal force. The Crown’s narrative framed the stabbing not as a spontaneous reaction but as a deliberate, high‑risk act that demonstrated intent or at least reckless disregard for Robson’s life.
The Argument and Stabbing
According to the Crown, the couple had been in a “volatile” relationship for about five months. On the morning of 6 May 2025, an argument resumed around 9 a.m. and quickly turned physical. Al‑Janabi stated that Green seized a kitchen knife and plunged it nearly 10 centimetres into Robson’s neck, penetrating his chest area and causing heavy bleeding. The prosecution contended that the depth and location of the wound indicated a clear intention to cause serious harm or death, rather than a defensive swipe meant merely to deter an attacker.
Immediate Aftermath and Attempts to Help
After the stabbing, both parties fled the sleepout. Green reportedly threw the knife among the equipment of Robson’s makeshift gym, while Robson went to the main house on the property to seek assistance. Occupants of the house recalled Robson shouting something akin to “the fucking b**** did this” as they tried to staunch the bleeding and called emergency services. Despite efforts to keep him talking and the arrival of ambulance crews who attempted a blood transfusion and opened his chest, Robson’s heart stopped and he was pronounced dead at the scene. The Crown stressed that the severity of the injury and the life‑saving measures undertaken underscored the gravity of Green’s actions.
Green’s Statements to Friends and Family
Al‑Janabi detailed Green’s subsequent disclosures to various acquaintances. After leaving the scene, Green first went to Sharon Manaia’s house, where she confessed the act and showed blood‑spattered skin. She then visited a friend’s gathering, telling cousin Jessica Tahere that Robson “shouldn’t have talked to her like her dad” and claiming she had previously given him a “hiding.” To another friend she said she had “f***ed up” and “flipped her switch,” while to a relative she alleged Robson had kicked her in the head, prompting her to stab him in the throat. These varying accounts were presented by the Crown as indicative of guilt, remorse, and attempts to rationalise the killing.
Inconsistencies in Police Interviews
The following day, Green returned to Manaia’s house and was persuaded to turn herself in. Al‑Janabi told the jury that Green gave “a number of different police officers a number of different things.” She clutched her shoulder as if in pain, telling one officer that Robson had given her a hiding, another that he had hurt her shoulder and arm, and yet another version that omitted any injury altogether. The Crown argued that these contradictions revealed a fabricated self‑defence narrative and demonstrated that Green’s violence was excessive, especially given the lack of any corroborating injuries on her person.
Medical Evidence and the Self‑Defence Rebuttal
A medical examination performed on Green the day after Robson’s death showed no cuts, bruises, or other injuries on her body. Al‑Janabi contended that this absence of trauma undermined any claim that she had been assaulted and therefore needed to defend herself. The prosecution asserted that Green “gambled with” Robson’s life by delivering a potentially fatal stab wound, and that her response was disproportionate to any threat she might have faced. Consequently, the Crown maintained that the stabbing constituted murder rather than lawful self‑defence.
Crown’s Call to Set Aside Prejudices
Anticipating potential juror bias, Al‑Janabi asked the jury to disregard sympathies or prejudices that might arise from Robson’s gang affiliations, his history of violence toward Green and a former partner, or the gruesome nature of his wound. She urged jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, reminding them that while Robson’s background could evoke emotion, it should not influence the determination of whether Green acted with intent to kill or with reckless indifference.
Defence’s Opening Argument
Defence lawyer Emma Priest opened by shifting the focus to Green’s lived experience, asking the jury to consider “What was life like for Ms Green?” and “What happened that day?” Priest acknowledged that Robson had a violent past but argued that the prosecution had not disproved self‑defence. She contended that Green did not anticipate that swinging a knife would cause serious injury, suggesting the act was a reflexive response to an imminent threat rather than a premeditated effort to kill. Priest urged jurors to withhold judgment until all evidence had been heard, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Defence’s Perspective on the Relationship
Priest highlighted the tumultuous nature of the couple’s relationship, describing repeated instances of Robson’s aggression toward Green and referencing past incidents where he had been violent toward other partners. She framed Green’s actions as a desperate attempt to protect herself from an ongoing pattern of abuse, arguing that the jury must assess whether a reasonable person in Green’s position would have perceived a threat sufficient to justify the use of a knife. The defence sought to portray the stabbing as a tragic, albeit understandable, outcome of a dangerous domestic situation.
Conclusion and Trial Continuance
Both prosecution and defence concluded their openings by reminding the jury of their respective burdens: the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Green intended to kill or acted with reckless indifference, while the defence must raise a reasonable doubt about self‑defence. The trial continues, with witnesses set to testify about the couple’s history, the events of 6 May 2025, and the forensic details of the wound. The jury’s eventual verdict will hinge on whether they view Green’s actions as a criminal act of murder or as a lawful, if tragic, act of self‑defence in the face of a violent partner.