A convicted murderer who served almost 27 years in prison for killing his lover's husband has denied having a CS gas canister with him when he allegedly stole food from a farm shop.
Bradford-born Ernest Wright, 59, was jailed for life at Chelmsford Crown Court in May 1973 after he was found guilty of murdering Trevor Hale.
A jury at Bradford Crown Court heard yesterday that Wright later married Ruth Hale during a ceremony at Hull Register Office while serving his sentence and was only released in October 1999.
The prosecution has alleged that in March this year, Wright, of Back John Street, Thornton, bought £10.27 of groceries at the farm shop in Brighouse and Denholme Road at Thornton, but left the premises without paying for portions of sirloin steak, cheese and butter.
The jury has heard evidence from staff about how Wright became agitated while they were waiting in an office for the police and suddenly brandished a CS gas canister.
Wright is alleged to have threatened to spray it in the face of manager Lee Scott unless he was allowed to leave the office and during a struggle with owner James Robertson the gas canister was activated.
Wright has pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft and offences under the Firearms Act relating to his unlawful possession and use of the gas canister.
He told the jury that he had not bought the meat, cheese or butter in the shop and that at the time of his arrest he had £300 on him.
Wright claimed that when he was taken into the office those items were on the desk and that it was Mr Scott who put them in one of his carrier bags.
He admitted that he was fed up with waiting because he had done nothing wrong.
"Did you have that CS gas canister with you?" asked his barrister Sean Morris.
"No, I did not," replied Wright.
He confirmed that as a result of the incident he had been recalled to prison again and did not know when he would be released.
During cross-examination, PC Beverley Kaur admitted that she had not seized the allegedly stolen items after Wright's arrest and Mr Morris pointed out that if she had, they may have provided fingerprint evidence.
He suggested that the items would also have been labelled providing good evidence of the time they had been bought.
The trial continues.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article