Hookes treated bouncer with disdain, court told

MELBOURNE - Former Test cricketer David Hookes treated the bouncer accused of his manslaughter with "arrogance and disdain" in the minutes before he was felled by a knockout punch, a Melbourne court has heard.

In his summary of the defence case, barrister Terry Forrest, QC, told a Victorian Supreme Court jury his client Zdravko Micevic, 23, was trying to move Hookes and his friends away from St Kilda's Beaconsfield Hotel on the night of January 18 last year.

Micevic has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and assault, arguing that he punched Hookes in self defence.

The court was told that after ejecting Hookes from the hotel, Micevic punched the then Victorian cricket coach, who fell backwards and hit his head on the road, fracturing his skull. He died the next day at The Alfred hospital.

Mr Forrest said Hookes and his friends had created "an atmosphere of hostile arrogance and aggression" right up to the moment that his client punched Hookes.

"We submit that ... David Hookes was in a mood," Mr Forrest said.

"He dealt with a 21-year-old security officer with arrogance and disdain."

Mr Forrest also moved to cast doubt on the evidence given in the trial by Hookes' friends, who witnessed the punch.

He said their evidence was an "extraordinary cocktail" that was "selective, mischievous, revisionist history", designed to preserve reputations and honour, rather than being what really happened.

"We submit that by and large the evidence given by the cricketing group has been selective, has been designed to place before you a rose-coloured version of what occurred and is calculated to lead you into factual error."

He said the evidence given by his client Mr Micevic was "far more likely to be the truth".

"I put it to you that if you were giving witnesses ratings in this case for consistency, for honesty, for decency, in your own impression he (Mr Micevic) would be right at the top," Mr Forrest said.

Mr Forrest said the Crown had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the punch was not thrown in self defence.

"The Crown say the punch was unlawful," he said.

"We say the punch was lawful, it was administered in lawful self defence."

He told the jury that even if they did not accept this, the Crown had failed to prove that a reasonable person in the accused's position would have realised the punch would cause serious injury, which must lead them to an acquittal.

Mr Forrest said that in the five to ten seconds before Hookes was hit, there was a "volatile, dangerous and violent episode unfolding", in which Micevic had been "intimidated and outnumbered".

He said it was the fall, not the punch that killed David Hookes and that Micevic had hit him with "mild to moderate force", using his left hand, which was his non-dominant hand.

"Why didn't he use his dominant hand, his power hand?" he said.

"Is it because his head was down, grappling with David Hookes ... is it because he threw a defensive punch, not an attacking punch?"

Mr Forrest said his client did not intend Hookes to die.

"A man in the prime of a distinguished and celebrated life died," Mr Forrest said.

"He didn't deserve to die, no one intended him to die and it was and is a tragedy."

Justice Philip Cummins will address the jury tomorrow, with the jury expected to be sent to consider its verdict on Thursday afternoon.

- AAP