A 47-year-old man has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and other charges in his ACT Supreme Court jury trial. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
CONTENT WARNING: This article refers to alleged family violence and a graphic injury.
As an attempted murder trial came to an end, a prosecutor alleged a man was drunk when he got into an argument about the likely end of his marriage then “snapped” and tried to kill his wife of 24 years.
An ACT Supreme Court jury trial began against the 47-year-old man last week in which he is fighting a charge of attempted murder.
His now-ex-wife alleged they got into an argument about their relationship at their home in Gungahlin on 5 July 2024 before he threatened to kill her, choked her on the ground, punched her and then stabbed her in front of their 17-year-old daughter.
Police arrived to find the woman had a carving knife sticking through her arm. She later saw she also had a small cut on her chest.
Over Monday and Tuesday (22 and 23 June), two forensic pathologists, Professor Johan Duflou and Dr Byron Collins, accepted that only a moderate level of force would have been needed for the knife to penetrate through the woman’s arm. But they agreed that if the tip of the knife were blunt, more force would be required.
Professor Duflou told prosecutor Sam McLaughlin it was possible the man used an “overhead motion” to inflict the injury on the woman’s arm.
But defence barrister Jack Pappas asked if the injury to the woman’s arm could have been caused if his client came around a corner quickly and collided with her when he was holding a knife.
Mr Pappas also asked if the small cut to the woman’s chest could have been caused when she and the man fell over after the knife went through her arm.
“It’s a possibility I can’t exclude,” the professor replied to both questions.
During closing submissions on Wednesday (24 June), Mr McLaughlin said Mr Pappas suggested the man had “impaled” the woman without meaning to. But he argued that for this to happen, the man would have had to have been carrying the knife point-outwards at chest height when the injury was inflicted.
“It’s a strange way of carrying a knife if you don’t intend to hurt anyone,” he said.
He said “the impaling” didn’t occur at a blind corner in the house, and the woman allegedly had time to see the man with the knife, begin retreating and then raise her arm to defend herself.
Mr McLaughlin also said the man didn’t try to help the woman after he realised he’d put a knife through her arm.
“Any suggestion that the accused has come around the corner and accidentally impaled [the woman] simply doesn’t stack up against the evidence,” he said.
Mr McLaughlin suggested the man was “intoxicated and conflicted” when he returned home that night as he wanted to save his marriage but knew that was increasingly unlikely.
He suggested that when the couple then got into an argument about their relationship, that was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.
“Disinhibited by a significant amount of alcohol, he snapped,” the prosecutor alleged.
But Mr Pappas asked if his client had deliberately stabbed the woman, “Why not pull the knife back out and finish the job?”
He said there were other knives in the kitchen, and there was “no impediment to this man finishing the job off”. The man picked up two other knives from the kitchen after the woman was impaled, but hadn’t attacked her with them.
Mr Pappas also said he would be critical of some of the woman’s evidence and pointed out that she was the only source of some of the alleged evidence against his client.
“She wanted to say that she was what is known these days in the popular press as a victim-survivor,” he claimed.
For instance, he said she initially hadn’t claimed the man made any sounds when approaching her with the knife, but when testifying in court, she said he had made “animalistic noises” at the time.
“Where does that come from?” he asked.
Mr McLaughlin, who gave his closing first, said he expected Mr Pappas would suggest the woman had been evasive or difficult when she testified. But the prosecutor suggested no evidence contradicted her claims.
The man, who is not named to protect his family’s identity, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder, as well as to charges in the alternative that included intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Justice Belinda Baker will begin giving her directions to the jury on Thursday (25 June).
If this story has raised any concerns for you, 1800RESPECT, the national 24-hour sexual assault, family and domestic violence counselling line, can be contacted on 1800 737 732. Help and support are also available through the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre on 02 6247 2525, the Domestic Violence Crisis Service ACT on 02 6280 0900, the Sexual Violence Legal Services on 6257 4377 and Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call triple zero.
If you have been affected by sexual violence, or someone you know has, you can report it to police by attending a police station or phoning 131 444.