Two constables who encountered the man minutes after the 11pm incident recalled from the witness box this week what they characterised as \u201crude\u201d and \u201cgenerally belligerent behaviour\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe was difficult to deal with,\u201d said Constable Ashton Dawber-Ashley, adding that the man smelled of alcohol. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe said he wanted to speak to senior police officers only.\u201d<\/p>\n
The defendant said he had a contact at the police station who was a Detective Senior Sergeant. He tried to call the detective in front of the other officer. <\/p>\n
\u201cI believe it was an attempt to intimidate me at the scene,\u201d Dawber-Ashley explained, to the objection of the man\u2019s lawyer. <\/p>\n
Supervisors did later attend the scene \u201cdue to the difficult nature of the defendant\u201d, the constable said, but the detective the defendant was trying to call never answered the phone. <\/p>\n
The defendant is also facing a disputed charge of failing to hand over the keys to his vehicle.<\/p>\n
Constable James Martel said he ordered the defendant to hand over the keys to the Toyota Land Cruiser \u2013 which was by that point parked on the street just outside the courthouse where he\u2019s now on trial \u2013 after noticing the defendant \u201cappeared to be quite intoxicated\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe informed me he didn\u2019t have the keys,\u201d Martel said, explaining that he repeated the order after explaining to the defendant that refusing to do so was a crime. <\/p>\n
He then conducted a body search after the defendant repeated that he didn\u2019t have the keys, the witness said. The officer said he found the keys in the man\u2019s left sock. <\/p>\n
A breath alcohol test taken later at the police station found the man to have 685 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The limit for adults with no prior drink driving convictions is 250 micrograms. <\/p>\n
The two constables who dealt with the defendant were the only witnesses called on Wednesday by police prosecutor Victor Wagner, who has finished presenting his case. <\/p>\n
The defendant has also elected to give evidence but won\u2019t do so until August, when the judge alone trial resumes. <\/p>\n
Defence lawyer Nick Chisnall KC. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n
Neither Wagner nor defence lawyer Nick Chisnall KC opted to give opening statements. But Chisnall indicated to the judge at the start of the hearing that the principal issue for the defence case will be legal advice. <\/p>\n
The defendant told officers repeatedly that he wanted to contact his personal lawyer, it is alleged. <\/p>\n
When officers couldn\u2019t get hold of that lawyer, police put the man on the phone with a duty lawyer. Later in the process, he was asked if he wanted to speak to a lawyer again. <\/p>\n
\u201cNo, your lawyers are crap, mate,\u201d the man responded, according to Constable Dawber-Ashley\u2019s recollection. <\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not going to comply. Let\u2019s get this going.\u201d<\/p>\n
He asked to retake the breath test, which is against policy, but refused a blood test, the officer recalled. <\/p>\n
The defence suggested during cross-examination of the officer that he should have tried harder to contact the man\u2019s preferred lawyer. <\/p>\n
A note made by the officer at the time indicated he tried to call but got no answer. <\/p>\n
He could no longer recall if he tried calling the lawyer more than once, the officer said, explaining that he didn\u2019t make a note of how many times because it didn\u2019t seem relevant. <\/p>\n
The defence also played a longer version of one of the CCTV videos from just outside the courthouse showing roadworkers catching up to the defendant before police arrived. <\/p>\n
A worker, thought to be the person who was hit but not seriously injured, immediately threw a punch at the businessman\u2019s face.<\/p>\n
Later in the video, three men in hi-vis could be seen surrounding the man. They did not attack him but pushed him back into the centre of the circle when he tried to walk away. The defence said it equated to \u201cmanhandling\u201d.<\/p>\n
Chisnall focused attention on the punch and asked to submit a list of the roadworker\u2019s prior convictions, which included assault. He asked the constables why the roadworker was never charged with a crime. <\/p>\n
Eventually, however, Judge Bonnar cut him off. <\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m sorry, how does this help me?\u201d the judge asked the defence lawyer. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe dangerous driving, if it occurred, took place before the assault.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Stephen Bonnar. Photo \/ Sylvie Whinray<\/p>\n
Even if it is being suggested the Land Cruiser was driven at the roadworker in self-defence of a perceived danger, the defendant couldn\u2019t have known anything about the roadworker\u2019s criminal background, the judge pointed out. <\/p>\n
\u201cI can tell you, Mr Chisnall, I\u2019m starting to lose a fair bit of patience in relation to all of this,\u201d the judge continued, adding a short time later: <\/p>\n
\u201cMr Chisnall, to be quite frank, I\u2019m not going to be making my decision based on whether police should or shouldn\u2019t have charged any other person for any other offence.\u201d<\/p>\n
The defence also asked police about a water bottle that was observed at the scene. No, the contents were not tested to see if it contained alcohol, the officers replied. <\/p>\n
Chisnall insinuated his client could have been sipping alcohol from the container after he parked the SUV, resulting in his intoxication after exiting the vehicle. <\/p>\n
The lawyer asked the judge for patience, explaining that his position will become more clear in written submissions to the court. They\u2019re unlikely to be submitted, however, until after the August hearing. <\/p>\n