The defendant told police he was acting in self-defence of himself and his partner, as he believed the visitors to the property were “out to get him” after they were earlier seriously assaulted in a home invasion.
He also thought Harrison was not only connected to that earlier assault but had no reason to doubt his partner who told him that she thought the man waiting at the gate had a gun.
Defence lawyer David Niven earlier argued that on the day of the shooting, the defendant was still suffering from the consequences of those injuries and had been diagnosed with acute distress disorder.
Niven earlier told the jury they needed to take into account the circumstances the defendant found himself in, “honestly believing” he was defending himself and his partner from a perceived threat.
“The defendant does not accept he had murderous intent and says he acted to defuse a threat against him and his partner and had bore no ill-will towards Harrison when he fired at the car, not the person.”
Crown prosecutor Richard Marchant said the defendant’s actions that night were an act of “retribution” and an unarmed Harrison posed no threat when he was shot within three seconds of the accused making his way up onto a grass embankment estimated to be about 26m from Harrison.
A CCTV camera captured Harrison standing at the front gate of the property, waving and smiling at the camera to alert the occupants, mouthing something about his reason for the visit, and moments later being shot, Marchant said.
After hearing both the defence and Crown cases, Justice Grant Powell told the jury to solely take into account evidence heard and seen during the trial and not speculate on possible other evidence not part of this trial.
Justice Powell said the fact that the defendant did not give evidence does not shift the burden from the Crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
He told the jury that feelings of sympathy or prejudice “must be pushed to one side” and must approach their deliberations “calmly, dispassionately and clinically”.
Justice Powell provided a question trail document to the jury to assist in their deliberations, which he said would also mean they could correctly apply the law in reaching their verdict.
The judge said the issue for the jury was whether they were satisfied the force used by the defendant, shooting in the direction of Harrison, was not reasonable in the circumstances as he understood them to be.
“If you are not sure the force [was] unreasonable then you find [the defendant] not guilty of charge one, murder.
“And if you conclude that the Crown has not proved that the defendant was not acting in self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, you must find him not guilty.”
However, if the jury concluded that when the defendant shot Harrison he intended to kill him, then they must find him guilty of murder, Justice Powell said
“If not, then the jury needed to ask themselves three further questions; firstly whether they were sure the defendant intended to cause bodily injuries that were more than minor,” he said.
“And whether they were sure the defendant consciously appreciated the injuries were likely to cause Harrison’s death and carried on regardless, and if the answer was yes, then find him guilty of murder.”
“If not, you are required to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter,” he said.
The jury went out for deliberations at 10.30am and were released for the day at 5.05pm.
The trial continues.
