[2025] SADC 141

Prosecution: R Counsel: MS R ANDERSON - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Defendant: ALI BINETTI Counsel: MR S MCDONOUGH - Solicitor: BARBARO THILTHORPE LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 18/08/2025 to 20/08/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-24-029829 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v ALI BINETTI Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2025] SADC 141 Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Durrant 8 December 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY Three men unknown to each other converged on the Yorke Peninsula town of Port Victoria on a Saturday night. The first complainant was staying in a tent at the local caravan park. The second complainant was attending a buck’s party and staying in a house nearby. The accused was staying in a cabin at the caravan park. At about 10.45pm the accused got into an altercation with the first complainant nearby the Port Victoria Hotel and town jetty. The prosecution charged him with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm and alternatively aggravated assault. Later that night within the caravan park the accused got into an altercation with the second complainant and stabbed him four times. In respect of that the prosecution charged the accused with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The accused elected for trial by judge alone. In respect of each offence self-defence was in issue. The prosecution has excluded that the accused had acted in lawful self-defence in respect of each charge. Verdict: (1) Guilty of Count One Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm. (2) Guilty of Count Two Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm. Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 20, 23, 24; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P, referred to. BKM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213, considered. -- 1 of 44 -- -- 2 of 44 -- R v ALI BINETTI [2025] SADC 141 Introduction 1 On Saturday night, 17 January 2024, three men hitherto unknown to each other converged on the Yorke Peninsula town of Port Victoria. 2 The first complainant BH, and his domestic partner KM, were camping in a tent at the local Gulf View Caravan Park. 3 The second complainant, JZ, was attending a buck’s party and staying in a house nearby. 4 The accused, Ali Binetti, had been staying in a cabin at the caravan park. 5 At about 10.45pm, the accused got into an altercation with BH outside of the Port Victoria Hotel and near the town jetty. 6 In respect of that, the prosecution charged the accused with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm and alternatively aggravated assault.1 7 Later that night the accused got into another altercation at the caravan park with JZ, whom he stabbed four times. 8 In respect of that second incident, the prosecution charged the accused with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm.2 9 The accused elected for trial by judge alone.3 10 In respect of each offence, self-defence was in issue. 11 The prosecution had to prove each element of those offences, including that it had excluded the accused had acted in lawful self-defence.4 12 I have found the accused guilty of both Count One and Count Two. 13 My reasons for doing so follow.5 1 Information filed 6 September 2024 (FDN17) Count 1 and 2; Count 4 on that Information was opened at trial and was the subject of an application by the defence following closure of the prosecution case that there was no case to answer. That application was granted T229.35- 230.23. 2 Ibid, Count 3. 3 Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7. 4 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), Part 3, Division 2. 5 Sufficient reasons must be given to properly explain my verdict but I am not obliged to express all Manners, ‘which necessarily have to be stated to a Jury, unfamiliar with the basic principles of law’; BKM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 [14]; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; and Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213. -- 3 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 2 Seven elements of causing harm with intent to cause harm 14 The offence of causing harm with intent to cause harm has seven elements.6 15 First, that the accused had performed an act, or acts. 16 Second, that the act or acts had been voluntary and deliberate. 17 Third, that a person had suffered harm. 18 Fourth, that the accused’s voluntary act or acts had caused that harm. 19 Fifth, that the accused had intended to cause harm. 20 Sixth, that the accused’s act or acts had been unlawful. 21 It is in respect of the sixth element that self-defence arises for both counts. 22 Self-defence operates where an accused genuinely believes their conduct was necessary and reasonable to defend themself; and their conduct was, in the circumstances as they genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat they genuinely believed to exist. 23 An accused does not have to prove self-defence. Rather, it is for the prosecution to exclude self-defence. 24 The prosecution relied on each of the two ways available to prove the accused in this case had not acted in self-defence. 25 First, the prosecution submitted it had established he had not genuinely believed his conduct had been necessary and reasonable to defend himself. 26 Second, the prosecution submitted it had established his conduct had not been, in the circumstances as he genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat he genuinely believed he faced. 27 Seventh, the accused had been in company with another in respect of Count one and used an offensive weapon, namely a knife, in respect of Count Two. The evidence 28 The prosecution case comprised oral testimony from BH, KM, JK, NS, and police officers Hills, Allely and Davies and 11 exhibits, including agreed forensic and other facts. 29 There was no defence case. 6 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 24(1). -- 4 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 3 General directions 30 While it is not necessary to direct myself in the same way a jury would require, I have reminded myself of the following general directions and have elsewhere in these reasons detailed some further specific directions. 31 To decide this case, I must find facts and draw inferences from the evidence led at trial, as well as apply the law to the facts found. 32 I must bring an open and unbiased mind to bear, view the evidence clinically and dispassionately, and not let emotion enter my decision-making. 33 The prosecution and accused are entitled to verdicts free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill-will and according to the evidence. 34 The prosecution always bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused. The accused does not have to prove anything. 35 The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. 36 Where I refer to something which must be or has been proved or established, or that I must be or have been satisfied of something; that thing must be or has been proved, or I must be or have been satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt. 37 My findings have been made beyond reasonable doubt, unless specified. 38 The accused is presumed innocent unless and until the evidence I accept satisfies each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 39 If the evidence fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of the offence charged, the accused remains presumed innocent. 40 The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. 41 I must consider each count separately and whether the evidence admissible in respect of that charge has proved that charge. 42 The assessment of witnesses involves consideration of whether the witness is honest. If satisfied the witness is honest, that assessment then must involve consideration of whether the evidence of the witness was reliable and accurate. 43 In the assessment of a witness's evidence, I am entitled to have regard to my experience of life, my dealings with other people and common sense. 44 I am not bound to accept all a witness's evidence or to reject all of it. I am entitled to reject some parts and to accept other parts. 45 I am entitled to consider the manner of a witness when they gave evidence and how the witness stood up when being cross-examined. -- 5 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 4 46 I must keep in mind the different backgrounds, age, personal qualities and characteristics of witnesses and the impact on memory of the elapse of time. The Witnesses Evidence in chief of BH 47 BH was 35 years old when he gave evidence. 48 For two years prior to 17 January 2024, BH been in a relationship with KM. 49 BH was meeting KM’s mother and partner that day, for the second time. 50 KM’s mother and her partner had already set up their caravan when BH and KM arrived at the Gulf View Caravan Park at Port Victoria about lunchtime. 51 BH and KM set up their 30-second tent. 52 KM’s mother and stepfather had earlier gone to Second Beach. 53 BH and KM drove there to join them at about 2pm. 54 The four of them spent the afternoon together at the beach before travelling back to the caravan park to get ready to go out for an evening meal at the pub. 55 While BH thought the booking was for 7pm it may have been for earlier. 56 BH consumed two standard strength beers before going out. 57 BH may have had two drinks at dinner and went back to the park at 8.30pm. 58 About an hour later he and KM went to the jetty to do some fishing and crabbing; they took their crab nets and fishing rods with them. 59 The jetty was about 3 minutes’ walk across from the pub. 60 By then BH had consumed about six beers but was not intoxicated. 61 BH and KM did not catch much at the jetty. 62 BH’s mood that evening was happy and excited as he and KM were looking at houses together and moving further with their relationship. 63 BH and KM decided about 10pm to leave the nets at the jetty, drop the rods back to the caravan park, and go back to the hotel for drinks and to play the pokies. 64 After an hour, KM won just over $1,000.00. BH and KM decided then to take their winnings and leave, first heading back towards the jetty to get their nets. 65 As they walked toward the jetty BH heard someone yelling out. -- 6 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 5 66 Three men, one on crutches, from a carpark atop a nearby small hill called BH a ‘faggot’. He replied, ‘I am not a faggot’. 67 BH walked toward the hill and got attacked and punched in the head. 68 It was dark and BH did not get a good look at the three men but was sure the tallest had punched him underneath his left eye at his cheek bone. 69 That hit knocked him down and BH fell to the ground. 70 BH held his hands to his face, while the men kicked him in the back. 71 BH could not remember any other ‘blows’ and did not recall anything else being said before being punched. 72 BH could not recall how long the event took nor how he had gotten up off the ground or how he had gotten away. 73 BH and KM then went back to get their crab nets. 74 Next BH heard someone yelling out to him about ‘apologising’. It was the taller man who had struck him earlier and he was approaching. 75 BH thought that offer genuine. As he went to shake hands, the man round house kicked him ‘straight across the throat’. 76 That kick knocked him back a few steps and to the ground.7 77 The contact to BH’s throat made him feel out of breath. 78 The three men got into a white HiLux and left. 79 BH and KM got their crab nets and went back to the hotel. 80 BH realised at the hotel he had a cut on the left side of his face, near his eye. It was bleeding a significant amount. 81 At the hotel, BH was given a tea towel. 82 They left the pub after about 15 minutes to walk back to the caravan park. 83 On the way back, BH saw his friend Steve. 84 Steve asked what had happened. Steve told him to get medical attention. 85 BH told Steve that he wanted to go back to the caravan park. 7 T15.8-10. -- 7 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 6 86 Two of Steve’s friends arrived and they all walked back to the caravan park. 87 BH had not seen Steve or his friends at any stage earlier that night. 88 As they walked through the park, about 30ms from his camp, the man who earlier attacked him jumped from behind bushes and ‘go to attack’ him.8 89 BH did not see that man carry anything in his hands and while the man did say something he could not remember what it was.9 90 BH was knocked to the side by one of the other men in the group. That then unknown man thereafter had tried to defend him. 91 His defender ended up wrestling with his attacker but BH did not see how that came about as he had been pushed aside. 92 Someone shouted, ‘he has a knife’ and they all ran off. 93 BH did not realise at that point anyone had been stabbed 94 After that KM had been on her phone and a hatchback BH had seen earlier parked at the top of hill approached to nearby their campsite. 95 BH saw the man on crutches, whom he had seen earlier, and a woman, get out of that car. BH picked up a hammer in self-defence. 96 The woman assaulted KM and the man came towards him. 97 BH threatened the man with the hammer and used it to smash the hatchback’s rear window. 98 BH and KM went to the house where Steve was. 99 Some ambulances were there. He got into one, went to hospital and got some stiches to his eye. Cross examination of BH 100 Back at the park, after Second Beach, BH had his first beer around 4pm. 101 BH had a couple of drinks before dinner and maybe two beers with dinner. 102 About 7:30pm, back at the caravan park, BH had another few beers. 103 BH and KM went to the jetty with their fishing rods, crab nets. They did not take a tackle bag. 8 T17.8. 9 In chief at T22.22-29 and in cross-examination at T24.28. -- 8 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 7 104 BH and KM did not walk up to the men from the car park. 105 He did not call the man on the crutches, ‘a black cripple’. 106 There was no aggression in his tone of voice toward the men from the hill. 107 BH said only ‘I’m not a faggot’ and then got punched. 108 BH did not throw any punches. 109 BH wanted to get his crab nets notwithstanding his face was bleeding from getting punched.10 110 He rejected the suggestion the incident where BH got kicked in the throat did not happen. It did happen. 111 BH tried to get another beer at the pub after he had been kicked in the throat but was refused as he was bleeding. 112 BH had consumed about 10 to 12 beers since the afternoon. 113 KM called the police. While waiting at the hotel they decided to go back to the caravan park. 114 BH and KM then ran into Steve. 115 BH had previously met Steve through his work. He was bleeding. 116 After that, there were then five people in his group going to the caravan park. 117 Steve’s friends had been staying in a house not far from the caravan park. 118 He had not known where Steve’s friends had been before that. 119 BH told the group he had been attacked. 120 They encouraged BH to get medical treatment. 121 After BH got pushed out of the way he took his crab nets back to his camp while the fight was going on.11 Evidence in chief of KM 122 KM is the partner of BH.12 10 T37.8-11. 11 T44.3-T.45.8. 12 KM gave evidence by CCTV. That does not influence its weight and I have not drawn an inference adverse to the accused because of that; Evidence Act 1925 (SA), s 13A. -- 9 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 8 123 KM and BH travelled to Port Victoria to visit her mother. 124 They set up their tent before going to the beach to see her mother and partner. 125 They all returned later in the afternoon to shower and get changed. 126 They had some drinks and KM and BH went to the pub earlier than her mother and her partner to play the pokies and have some drinks before eating. 127 They all had dinner at the pub and shared a bottle of wine. 128 BH was not much of a wine drinker. 129 After they went back to the park, they played board games and had another beer. 130 KM and BH then went fishing off the jetty. KM caught a small squid. 131 They took some of their gear back but left their nets in the water off the jetty. 132 KM and BH walked back to the pub and had a couple more drinks. 133 KM won some money on the pokies at 10:21pm.13 134 There was a group in the pokies area who were on a buck’s show. 135 After KM’s win, BH and KM left to get the crab nets from the jetty. 136 BH was in a fine mood and they were both happy. 137 Outside KM heard yelling from her left up the hill. 138 Some men were calling out stuff. Two came toward her and BH. 139 KM heard them say something like ‘faggot’ or ‘gay c---t’ but was not sure exactly. 140 KM did not think they had responded but BH might have said ‘fuck off’. 141 The men started pushing and shoving BH. That shocked her. 142 Next, BH was on the ground. She did not see how he came to be there. 143 KM got in the middle of the fight and pushed people away. 144 It did not look like BH had any injures at that time. 145 BH still wanted to get their nets. 13 Exhibit P2. -- 10 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 9 146 As they were doing that, one of the men came down and was saying sorry. 147 KM told him to leave them alone. 148 He kept coming down the hill. 149 He kicked BH in the ‘head region’, ‘above the neck area’.14 150 KM could not remember if BH had turned around as the man went to apologise or whether BH had reached out his hand to shake the other man’s hand. 151 They went back to the pub and BH was bleeding from his eye. 152 As they left the pub, they met two other guys walking towards them. 153 They said they would walk her and BH back to the caravan park. 154 KM rung police but was told they were too busy to assist. 155 KM was walking behind the group. 156 She heard people running and someone say someone had been stabbed. 157 KM tried to find BH but they had been separated. 158 When they got back to their tent a man and a woman got out of a car. They shouted, ‘we rule this world’ and ‘you can’t do anything’. 159 KM heard something smash. She saw BH had smashed the car window. 160 The women kicked KM in the head just as police arrived. Cross- examination of KM 161 What happened was quite confronting. It had been about 18 months earlier. 162 There were things she could not remember due to the passage of time and the shock of what had happened. 163 KM had not felt intoxicated when leaving the pub. 164 KM and BH had spent the afternoon at Second Beach. Her mum’s partner and BH had been fishing. 165 BH had only one drink at the beach, as he had been driving. 166 They probably also had a drink while getting ready to go to the pub. 14 T63.27 and T66.28. -- 11 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 10 167 KM and BH went to the pub in advance of dinner to play the pokies. 168 About 5:30pm- 6:00pm they had entrees and mains and a bottle of white wine for the table. BH got a beer but did not have much wine. 169 They went back to the caravan park about 7:30pm, played board games and drunk maybe another two beers. 170 KM had not kept close track of BH’s consumption but he was not intoxicated. 171 When they decided to go fishing, they did not take any alcohol with them. 172 They spent about 1 to 1 ½ hours in the pokies room. 173 While she was not keeping close track, she thought BH had one drink there. 174 There was a bucks party at the pub and she spoke with them. 175 KM remembered two men had come down from the hill towards them. 176 As they were coming down, someone in the group said ‘faggot’. 177 BH responded he was ‘not a faggot’. 178 KM could not remember if BH had said anything else. 179 KM had no recollection of BH pushing back or shoving the men. 180 BH had been on the ground with two men kicking him 181 She could not say how many times he had been kicked. 182 KM could not recall either of them arguing or fighting with those men. 183 KM could not remember looking at BH’s face after because she ‘just tried to keep her head down’ and get out of there. 184 The guys they met offered to walk them back to the caravan park. 185 They had walked with the other guys. She was a few metres back from the group and had not been around the area of the second incident. 186 KM did not see anyone in that fight, as she could not see the men in front. 187 KM had been looking at her phone and did not see what happened. 188 When they got back to their campsite she told her mother they got jumped at the pub and someone had been stabbed. 189 KM told her mother to get back inside as the police were coming. -- 12 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 11 190 When the hatchback pulled up she could not remember where BH was but KM recalled the man had yelled and she had told him they had called police. 191 KM heard a smashing noise and saw BH with a hammer. 192 KM did not know where BH got the hammer from. 193 The woman had got out of the car and came toward her and called her a slut. 194 KM was kicked in the side of her face by the woman. 195 Police had come and the other people had then left. 196 BH was angry the police had let the car leave. Evidence in chief of JZ 197 JZ was in Port Victoria for a fishing trip as part of a friends bucks show. 198 He arrived Friday night and went to a barbeque at their accommodation. 199 JZ did not consume any alcohol on the Friday. 200 JZ knew Steve, the operator of the charter for the trip. 201 JZ helped Steve get the boat ready at about 5am the following day. 202 Some in the group were inexperienced with boats. Seasickness was a concern. 203 About an hour out to sea some in the party were getting sick and about half were dropped back onshore. 204 Later that evening he went to the pub. 205 While walking back to the house he ran into a couple in distress. 206 Steve had been talking to them. Jarra from the bucks group was there also. 207 BH was bleeding from a cut eye. 208 BH and KM had crab nets. They told his group they had been assaulted and asked to be walked back to their cabin in the caravan park. 209 After a few minutes they arrived at the caravan park. 210 It was quite dark. 211 They got to a slant or slope and he noticed someone running towards them. 212 It was a man and he was screaming or grunting and had no shirt on. -- 13 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 12 213 JZ did not know what he was saying but it was aggressive. 214 JZ thought that must be the person who had attacked BH and KM. 215 He looked strong, wore a gold chain and was running straight at his group. 216 JZ realised, as the man got closer, he was running directly for him. 217 He thought by that time he had no time to run. 218 JZ thought he was probably a little bit bigger and maybe stronger. 219 JZ decided to let the man get close and tackle him. 220 JZ braced himself for contact. There was no time to say anything. 221 As JZ tackled that man to the ground he got punched on his left side under his rib cage at the back. 222 He later realised he had a stab wound at that spot where he had been punched. 223 JZ thought he had to stand up for himself as a local couple in their late 40s had been attacked and now the guy was running at him with no shirt on 224 JZ thought it looked like he was in a fight. 225 JZ thought he had to defend himself. 226 JZ felt like he had to fight for his life. 227 JZ did not know how long the fight lasted but it felt like about five minutes. 228 As JZ wrestled with the man he was struck by him in areas where he later realised he had been stabbed. 229 JZ did not know he was getting stabbed at the time, but he did feel a burning sensation or a sharp sensation as he had been punched. 230 JZ’s adrenaline was pumping. 231 At some point while the man swung his arms around at him, JZ had him in a choke hold. 232 The choke hold failed and JZ did not know what to do. 233 They continued wrestling until Jarra jumped in and held the man off. 234 JZ was on all fours and exhausted. 235 The accused had yelled at him, 'Is that all you got? You want more’? -- 14 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 13 236 JZ felt in danger and thought something was wrong. 237 JZ heard Steve yell out ‘machete, machete, machete’. 238 JZ thought he had to get out of there as he was going to get killed. 239 JZ panicked at that point and was a bit dazed. 240 JZ yelled 'Let's get out of here'. 241 JZ sprinted back to the house a couple of hundred metres away. 242 When JZ walked into the house there were four or five people there. 243 JZ took his clothes off and was told ‘you've got holes everywhere in you'. 244 JZ asked for every towel in the house and for the others to apply pressure. 245 JZ could not talk and was trying to keep calm. 246 JZ consumed two or maybe three beers that day and was not intoxicated. 247 JZ got into the shower and asked the others to help him with towels. 248 When the ambulance arrived, they attended to JZ’s wounds. 249 JZ did not provoke the fight or say anything to provoke it. 250 JZ had not seen a knife at any point but believed ‘a knife was broken throughout the fight…had broken or snapped off somewhere’.15 Cross- examination of JK 251 JZ was an experienced fisherman. 252 JZ had not brought his gear with him as that had been included in the charter. 253 There were about seven other men on the buck’s show. They had all gone out onto the charter boat, plus the captain Steve. 254 JZ had assisted Steve. 255 They had gone out on the boat early. 256 Conditions were not good for fishing but he did not get seasick. 257 JZ was on the boat around 8-9 hours and helped clean it until about 7pm. 15 T108.20-22. -- 15 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 14 258 JZ did not have a drink until he got to the pub at 9pm. 259 By then it was too late for food. He had a few drinks until about 10:30pm. 260 As JZ left to go back to the house, he ran into Steve and BH and KM. 261 JZ had a conversation with BH and KM. 262 He saw blood on KM’s face but was not sure what had caused it. 263 JZ could not recall exactly what was said by BH and KM but did remember they told them they had been attacked. 264 BH and KM did not provide much detail. 265 He asked if they needed help. They wanted to grab some stuff and leave. 266 They appeared scared, shaken up and asked for help to go back to the park. 267 JZ was in the group of five who had walked into the caravan park. 268 JZ thought KM was walking next to them. He was not keeping track of everyone’s position in the group but thought they were all sort of level. 269 As they had walked into the caravan park towards some cabins he saw someone come from the direction of those cabins where it was more lit up. 270 The path they had taken was dark and had lots of trees. 271 The man ran at him and JZ braced to let him get close and tackle him. 272 JZ thought it was the man who had attacked BH and KM. 273 JZ did not have much time to prepare for impact. 274 JZ believed he got punched before his tackle because the man got to him and made a swinging motion and he felt that punch make contact. 275 As JZ wrestled with the man on the ground he was punching him in any part of his body he could, and he was also getting punched. 276 JZ tried to get the man in a choke hold like he had seen on television. 277 JZ could not recall pushing BH out of the way. 278 JZ did not know he had been stabbed. 279 JZ could not be certain of the order in which his injuries had occurred. 280 JZ did not realise the extent of his injuries until after the altercation. -- 16 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 15 281 JZ did not see Jarra with a knife. 282 JZ did not have a knife on him. 283 JZ did not know what was in the pockets of Jarra or Steve. 284 There had been a small knife on the boat that day and it was not an unusual thing for there to be a knife in a tackle box. 285 JZ rejected the proposition the man had wrestled the knife from him. 286 Counsel for the accused asked JZ to consider a photograph of a knife: Q. You recognise that as a knife. A. Looks like a broken knife to me. Q. Tip missing. A. Yep. Q. Do you recognise that as a knife that wouldn't be out of place on a fishing charter boat. A. That knife could come from anywhere, I'm not sure what type of knife or brand it is but it's hard to tell. It looks like it would be a fishing knife, yep. Q. It could be a fishing knife. You've never seen this before. A. Nope. This is the first time. Q. This is the first time you've seen it. A. Yep. Q. Yesterday in your evidence you mentioned that there was a knife with a tip missing. A. Yes, because the knife was broken, I was told during the altercation that the knife had broken. Q. That's what you were told later. A. I believe, yeah, that was after discussing with the detective on numerous occasions, did you find - Q. That's where you got that information from. A. I believe so. Q. It wasn't the case that that was your broken knife. A. No. Who carries a broken knife? Q. Might still be good for fishing. -- 17 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 16 A. Don't think so. 287 JZ accepted he had been denied service of alcohol in May 2017, at the Strathmore Hotel and was convicted of behaving in a disorderly manner. 288 JZ at that time had a problem with alcohol. 289 JZ was convicted of disorderly behaviour in 2015, in relation to his dealings with police at Port Wakefield. 290 JZ was at The Firm in March 2015 and pleaded guilty to fighting there. 291 JZ denied any prior involvement in incidents like this. 292 When younger, JZ did not have ideal role models, had mental health issues but had turned his life around since that offending. 293 It was in his nature to help people. That is why he helped BH and KM walk to the caravan park as it was the right thing to do. 294 JZ did not recall hearing BH say that it was the guy from the pub who had come at them but he had put that together in his head. Evidence in chief of NS 295 NS is the mother of KM. 296 NS spent the afternoon at the beach with BH and KM. 297 They were not big drinkers and did not have much to drink that afternoon. 298 KM and BH left around 5pm to see what the pub was like, have a few drinks and play the pokies. 299 BH was fine, quiet, and reserved on the day. His behaviour was normal. 300 KM was excited as they had just received approval for a home loan. 301 They ordered dinner together and had a bottle of wine between four of them. 302 BH and her partner Jeff may have also had a beer. 303 BH did not drink much wine as he was not a big fan. 304 After the pub they all went back to the caravan for a celebration drink. 305 There was no real change in the behaviour of BH. 306 BH and KM decided to go fishing. 307 She received a message from KM that she had won money on the pokies. -- 18 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 17 308 The next time she heard from KM was after she had gone to bed when she had heard lots of noise from a group of guys at the cabins. 309 NS heard KM and BH talking and was told by them to go back inside. 310 She was told BH had been fly kicked in the throat and punched, and two people had been stabbed. 311 NS went back into her caravan to wake up Jeff and then went outside again. 312 A white car pulled up in front of their site. 313 NS heard a window smash and saw BH and KM standing out there. 314 NS saw a girl and a man on crutches get out of the car and the female grab KM by the hair and punch her in in the face. 315 NS then saw police cars. Cross-examination of NS 316 This was the second time she had met BH in person. 317 NS had not been keeping track of other people’s drinks. 318 NS had heard commotion at the cabins and saw men go in different directions ‘really quickly’. Brevet Sergeant David Hills 319 BS Hills went to the caravan park around 1.30am on 18 February 2024. 320 A group was gathered in the caravan park around police officer Dutschke who was ‘standing thereabouts on a knife’ and ‘sort of guarding it’. 321 Hills looked down a line of cabins and saw a person moving through the shadows. He approached and saw the accused who gave no response. 322 The accused was wearing a hoodie and grey pants. His hood was up and he had slight injuries to his eyes and a bit of blood down the side of his pants leg. 323 The accused had swollen black eyes and cheek bones, a cut on his hand, blood on his pants and seaweed and sticks in his hand. Cross-examination of Brevet Sergeant Hills 324 The accused was sat with his hands in his hoodie pocket. 325 The accused had blood on his hands and track pants. 326 The track pants of the accused had no pockets. -- 19 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 18 327 The accused had a ‘really significant’ cut to his right hand. Brevet Sergeant Allely 328 BS Allely was the officer in charge of the Maitland Police Station. 329 BS Allely went to the park and saw a smashed rear window of a hatchback. 330 BS Allely attended at a house and assisted JZ until an ambulance arrived. 331 JZ had several puncture wounds to his back. 332 BS Allely saw a small knife at the caravan park with a red handle and a blade about 6cm long with the tip snapped off. 333 BS Allely put the knife into evidence. 334 A photograph of the knife in situ was taken by another officer.16 335 BS Allely later observed KM and BH. He considered KM was intoxicated and that BH had been drinking. 336 A photo ID proof of age card for the accused was provided by the caravan park as found in the Sunset Cabin. 337 BS Allely did not recall any conversation with JZ, but he would not have told JZ that he had found a knife with a broken tip. Detective David Davies 338 Detective Davies was the investigating officer. 339 Photos were taken by a crime scene investigator.17 340 Neither Jarra nor Steve wanted to participate in the trial. 341 Detective Davies usual practice in respect of information obtained in an investigation was not to relay it to witnesses. 342 Detective Davies had never told JZ about any broken knife. Agreed Facts 343 Forensic Agreed Facts were agreed as follows:18 1. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is part of our genetic make up. It is found in tissues of the human body including blood, saliva, skin and sperm cells. Scientists are able to extract DNA from those tissues and obtain a DNA profile. The DNA profile will be the same no matter what cell it is extracted from. The DNA profile does not 16 Exhibit P5. 17 Exhibit P6 and P7; See also Exhibit P8- the crime scene investigators work sheet. 18 Exhibit P10. -- 20 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 19 change over time. The DNA profile from one person is highly likely to be different from another person (including relatives, except identical twins, who will have the same DNA profile). 2. Under some circumstances scientists can detect DNA in a cellular material left behind on an item when that item comes into contact with a person. This is known as “contact DNA”. 3. DNA profiles obtained in a laboratory can be compared against DNA profiles obtained from known persons. In performing this comparison scientists are not able to conclude that a particular DNA sample in fact came from a particular person. Rather, in some circumstances they are able to express the statistical probability of the chances of obtaining a particular scene DNA profile if the scene DNA was left by the known person rather than an unknown person. That is called the “statistical likelihood”. 4. DNA can be deposited on an item by a number of mechanisms. Those mechanisms include direct deposition of bodily fluids (such as blood, saliva or semen); deposition of DNA via (skin) contact (primary transfer or secondary transfer). 5. Primary transfer is when a particular person leaves their DNA on a surface by direct contact. Secondary transfer is when a person’s DNA is left on a surface via a second transfer; for example, Person A may leave their DNA on a cup they are holding. If person B then handles that cup they may pick up Person A’s DNA on their hand and transfer Person A’s DNA to a second cup or other object that Person A has never touched. If Person B’s DNA is also transferred to this second cup, both Person A and Person B’s DNA may be detected if this second cup is sampled for DNA analysis i.e. both Person A and B’s DNA has co-mingled. 6. If items such as clothing which have wet blood on them are rubbed together, then you will get transfer of blood from one item of clothing to the other. 7. The amount of DNA which might be deposited on an item will vary. 8. In relation to touch or contact DNA, some people will deposit a relatively large amount of DNA (i.e. these people are considered “good shedders”) and some people will deposit a relatively small amount of DNA (i.e. “bad shedders”). There is a large spectrum of how much DNA people would leave on an item. By comparison, the amount of DNA contained in a biological fluid such as blood, saliva and semen is typically much greater than the amount of DNA that is left by (skin) contact. Blood is a rich source of DNA. 9. It is not possible to say when the DNA from a particular person was deposited. If DNA from more than one person is present on a surface, it is not possible to determine which persons’ DNA was deposited first, nor whether both person’s DNA was deposited at the same time. (Note: if the source of the DNA is blood, and two bloodstains, each from different people, have been deposited on top of each other, it may be possible to determine from the physical characteristics of the two stains which stain was deposited first. This analytical process is known as “Bloodstain Pattern Analysis”). 10. It is not possible to determine a time or date when DNA has been deposited. 11. DNA might remain on an item for days, months or years, if not attempt is made to actively remove it. DNA will degrade or break down over time to a point where it can no longer be detected. -- 21 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 20 12. The type of item being analysed also has an impact on DNA deposition. Items that have rough surfaces are expected to collect & retain DNA more readily than surfaces that are very smooth. 13. The amount of time an item is held for or touched may also have an impact on how much DNA is deposited onto that item. The longer the time, the more opportunity for DNA to be transferred. 14. If an item of clothing (including shoes) has been worn by a person you would expect their DNA to be deposited onto that item. As stated in point 13, the amount of time that clothing was worn will have an impact on how much DNA is deposited. 15. The deposition of blood may be direct, for example a drop of blood dripping onto an item of clothing or furniture. It may also occur by secondary transfer, for example, a person touching a wet bloodstained item and then touching another item with that wet blood on their hand – or wiping their hand on another surface. (Bloodstain Pattern Analysis may be able to determine the most likely mechanism of stain deposition [but was not used in this case]). 16. If items are washed, that would remove some, but not necessarily all of the DNA. It is not possible to say how much DNA would have been left after an item has been washed. The more thorough the wash, the more DNA will be removed. 17. In some cases, the result of sampling an item may be that a “mixed” DNA profile is obtained, i.e. more than one person has deposited DNA on that item. If there are more than five contributors to a DNA sample, its DNA profile becomes too complex to analyse, unless a particular person can be assumed to be one of the five contributors, for example if the sample was taken from clothing they are known to have worn. The different contributors to a sample will leave different amounts of DNA on the item; these different amounts can be seen in the mixed DNA profile generated from the sample. 18. Members of Forensic Science Centre are not permitted to comment as to the possible mechanisms of blood deposition or transfer. 344 Agreed Facts were agreed as follows:19 1. JZ was admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital on 18 February 2024. 2. JZ was treated at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Christopher Dobbins. 3. Dr Dobbins treated JZ for four stab wounds including: a. A three-to-five-centimetre laceration to the left posterior flank; b. A one-to-two-centimetre laceration close by to the left of the posterior flank; c. A three-to-five-centimetre laceration to his left outer calf; and d. A two-to-three-centimetre laceration on his left chest wall under his armpit to the side of his chest. 19 Exhibit P11. -- 22 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 21 4. All wounds were closed with sutures. 5. A scan showed no deep injuries. 6. Dr Dobbins is of the opinion that the injuries were consistent with having been caused by a knife or other sharp object. 7. On 18 February 2024, the accused was brought by ambulance to the Maitland Hospital. 8. The accused was treated by Dr Basitt Kirmani, the doctor in charge of the Maitland Hospital. 9. Dr Kirmani noted that the accused had bilateral black eyes, no clear ocular injury and no clear broken nose. 10. He noted bruising to the accused’s right external ear. 11. He further noted that the accused had a bleeding injury to his right dominant hand and a laceration to his thumb with some gravel rash. 12. At 8.52am on 18 February 2024, the accused was conveyed by the Royal Flying Doctor Service (‘RFDS’) to the RAH, arriving at 10.30am. 13. At 11.36am, the accused was admitted to the Emergency Department of the RAH. He was transferred to the orthopaedic surgery section at 9.29pm on 18 February 2024. 14. The accused was discharged from the RAH at 6.06pm on 21 February 2024. 15. The photographs contained in Exhibit P1 of BH were taken on 22 February 2024 by Brevet Sergeant Ingham at the Maitland Police Station. 16. Items 5.01-01, 6.01-01 were tested by the Forensic Science Centre of South Australia (FSSA). They contain swabs taken from the road area leading into the Gulfview Caravan Park. a. The source of 5.01-01 can be seen in photos 10-13 on pages 6-7 in Exhibit P6. b. The source of 6.01-01 can be seen in photos 6-12 on pages 3-6 in Exhibit P6. c. The source of 7.01-01 can be seen in photos 22-26 on pages 11-13 in Exhibit P6. 17. Items 8.01-01 and 9.01-01 which were tested by the FSSA, contain swabs taken from the ‘Sunset Cabin’ at the Gulfview Caravan Park by Senior Constable First Class Allan Claughton on 18 February 2024. d. The source of 8.01-01 can be seen in photos 6-12 on pages 3-6 in Exhibit P7. e. The source of 9.01-01 can be seen in photos 21-23 on pages 11-12 in Exhibit P7. 18. Items 14.01-01, 14.01-02 and 14.01-03 contain swabs taken from the red handled knife located in the vicinity of the ‘Sunset Cabin’ at the Gulfview Carpark. f. This knife can be seen in the photos comprising Exhibits P4 and P5. -- 23 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 22 19. The accused was subject to home detention electronic monitoring by the Department of Correctional Services at the time of this incident. The electronic device, fitted to the accused in the form of an ankle monitor, received a GPS signal, determining the offender’s location. the accused’s location data places him in the relevant areas at the relevant times. 20. On 29 February 2024, BH participated in a photo identification procedure where he identified the accused as the male who he alleges assaulted him on 17 February 2024. 21. On 4 March 2024, JZ participated in a photo identification procedure where he identified the accused as the male who he alleges assaulted him on 17 February 2024. 22. Constable Zach Dutschke of the Maitland Police Station received two separate phone calls from KM at 11.23pm and 11.52pm on 17 February 2024. Submissions of the prosecution 345 Ms Anderson urged me to accept the evidence of BH and KM as honest and reliable in respect of the material matters in this case. 346 BH, Ms Anderson submitted, had withstood cross-examination well, was a consistent witness and had been candid when he could not remember. 347 She submitted BH did not make anything up or make guesses and he was candid about his role in smashing the window of the white car. 348 In respect of that, Ms Anderson suggested it was understandable, given how the night had taken its toll, as BH had been at breaking point. 349 Further, submitted the prosecution, BH had been honest about the limitations to his memory because he had put this incident to the back of his mind and was anxious about remembering these events. 350 In respect of KM, Ms Anderson noted she had been rattled by these events as it had all come out of the blue for her. 351 KM was though, it was suggested by the prosecution, up front about not remembering some things and that was also understandable in the circumstances. 352 The prosecution submitted I could find the following facts for Count One. 353 BH had about 8-9 drinks that day and was not feeling intoxicated when he left the pub later that evening and had contact with the accused and the other men. 354 BH and KM had both heard derogatory slurs aimed in their direction and everything had happened very quickly from that point on. 355 BH was approached and punched to his left cheekbone underneath his eye socket by the accused such as to cause a cut and bleeding from that part of his face. He had been knocked to the ground. -- 24 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 23 356 The men from the car park were the aggressors and they had started the fight. 357 BH did not contact the group or start the fight. There was no evidence he had done anything except reply he was not a faggot. 358 BH put his hands up to his face to defend himself while on the ground. 359 As for the intention of the accused to cause harm, Ms Anderson submitted that by looking at all circumstances, including the kick to the throat afterwards, the state of mind of the accused and his intention was to cause BH harm. 360 The accused feigned to apologise and kicked BH ‘straight across the throat’.20 361 As for Count Two, Ms Anderson noted BH said the same person who hit and kicked him, jumped out at his group during the caravan park incident. 362 While the prosecution accepted differences between BH and JZ about how the accused had come at them that night, both versions were reconcilable. 363 That was because this incident involved a short series of events, it was dark, and before JZ had seen the accused, BH may have seen him jump out of the bushes. 364 Consistently, it was submitted, both BH and JZ said the accused had come at them and BH said after he had been pushed to the ground he had seen JZ, as JZ had said, on the ground wrestling with the accused. 365 It is clear, it was submitted, that for both BH and JZ these events happened very quickly and that explained their differing accounts of how they had first become engaged with the accused. 366 As for where the knife came from, it was submitted, there was no evidence anyone in the group had a knife or that BH or JZ had a knife. 367 Rather, it was submitted, the circumstantial evidence supported the only reasonable inference that the accused had the knife and stabbed JZ with it. 368 Particularly, said Ms Anderson, JZ denied any knowledge of the knife and he said he did not see the knife at all that night. 369 Further, submitted the prosecution, the knife had been examined at forensic science and the accused’s DNA had been on the blade. 370 Finally, the knife was located, submitted Ms Anderson, nearby the Sunset Cabin where the accused had been staying. 20 T15.8-10. -- 25 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 24 371 As for who had the knife first, Ms Anderson noted it was JZ who had sustained numerous puncture wounds to his body while the accused had a wound to his hand. 372 The prosecution submitted I should find JZ and the accused had been rolling around on the ground and a plausible explanation for both of their injuries was that the accused had the knife during all that time. 373 The prosecution said I should accept JZ’s evidence that his injury to his back was sustained during the swinging punch, before he had tackled the accused. 374 The prosecution submitted there was no room for any other reasonable inference than that the accused had been in possession of the knife at the time that injury was sustained; being before JZ had tackled the accused to the ground. 375 Given the numerous injuries to JZ it is the only logical inference, submitted the prosecution, that the accused had the knife for most of the fight and had the knife when JZ was stabbed four times. 376 Given the wounds to JZ, submitted the prosecution, it was not reasonably possible that JZ had stabbed himself, as he had stab wounds on his back. 377 The injuries to the accused eyes and face, it was submitted, supported JZ’s evidence he had punched the accused. 378 There was circumstantial evidence, the prosecution submitted, that the accused had the knife as he had a cut to his right dominant hand, and that it was a self-sustained wound which occurred as he used that knife to stab JZ. 379 As a witness, the prosecution submitted, JZ was candid about his prior offending history and honest about his problem with alcohol. 380 That history should be given little weight though, submitted Ms Anderson, as it had been 7 years since his last alcohol- fuelled offending. 381 Further, Ms Anderson urged, if the accused was the aggressor, very little weight should be given to the evidence of JZ’s past offending. 382 The prosecution accepted JZ gave evidence in varying degrees of detail. 383 It should be accepted though, it was submitted, the accused had used his right dominant hand to swing at JZ and contacted the left side of JZ’s body, and given his injuries, that he had the knife at the time he did that. 384 Ms Anderson urged me to infer, as JZ had felt a sharpness at that time, it was the first occasion he was stabbed and it was before the wrestle to the ground. 385 If the Court is satisfied the accused started the fight, submitted the prosecution, the accused was a willing participant and he could not have been -- 26 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 25 acting in self-defence as the accused had been the initial aggressor and he could not have genuinely believed he was under threat. Submissions of the defence 386 Mr McDonough said self-defence was in issue in respect of each incident. 387 As for Count 1, Mr McDonough accepted both KM and BH were trying their best and they did not mislead the court. 388 He submitted though each had reliability issues due to the passage of time and the impact the incident had on them mentally. 389 That he submitted, had impacted their capacity to recall what had happened. 390 Intoxication, Mr McDonough submitted, was also relevant to reliability. 391 While BH gave evidence he was not intoxicated, the defence submitted, he did have alcohol during that day and evening. 392 That was significant, it was submitted, as he did not remember certain events. 393 Between 4pm, submitted the defence, and leaving the pub after the pokies at 10:21pm, he had in 6.5 hrs consumed about 9-10 beers. 394 The defence suggested some people might under report their alcohol intake. 395 Further, while the police officer said BH did not appear intoxicated, he could smell alcohol on BH. 396 That alcohol consumption, it was submitted, limited BH’s reliability as a witness and impacted his perception of events as they happened to or around him. 397 As for KM, Mr McDonough submitted, while she had denied being intoxicated, the police witness said she seemed so. 398 Her consumption and that observation, it was submitted, impacted her reliability and her evidence should be given little weight. 399 There were also differences between those witnesses, it was submitted. 400 BH said he went up the hill and had a discourse with the group and denied pushing back and did not know how the incident ended. 401 KM, it was submitted, said the accused and others approached BH. She described it as a scuffle and that there had been pushing, although she was not sure how the pushing and shoving had started. She had intervened to end the incident. -- 27 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 26 402 Importantly, submitted Mr McDonough, KM had not seen any blood when BH was punched and accordingly it was unclear if the blood had come from that punch, or from the later kick to the face thereafter. 403 In respect of that Count 1, Mr McDonough submitted the causing of harm had not been established. 404 The first incident, submitted the defence, was relevant to my consideration of the people involved later, as it informed their actions. 405 It was accepted by the defence that KM and BH had met Steve, JZ and Jarra and then had informed them BH had been jumped. 406 It was accepted by the defence JZ had seen KM with blood on her face and it was on his mind that he thought BH and KM had been violently assaulted. 407 That, submitted Mr McDonough, operated on JZ when walking down the driveway and when they encountered the accused. 408 It might have influenced his thinking, it was submitted, and his perception of how dangerous the accused was, and went to his need to be proactive in dealing with what he might have perceived was a threat to the group. 409 That second incident, Mr McDonough submitted, was not expected by BH, who had not known where the accused went. 410 It could also not be properly suggested, submitted the defence, that the accused knew BH was coming back to the caravan park. 411 It was, the defence submitted, a case of coincidental meeting. 412 The accused, it was submitted, may have recognised BH and KM and saw the other men walking towards him. 413 That realisation, it was submitted, meant it was reasonably possible the accused perceived he was under threat. It was an inherently unlikely meeting, it was submitted, because it could not have been predicted. 414 Given his earlier interaction with BH, it was submitted, the accused may have been worried about the approach of that group. 415 It is not known, it was submitted, what the accused would have done if he had not been tackled by JZ. 416 Importantly, it was submitted, there had been no evidence the accused had his hands up as he approached or that he had been asking anyone to fight him. 417 JZ, it was submitted, had concluded it must have been the guy who had attacked BH and that he needed to take charge of the situation and initiate contact. -- 28 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 27 418 JZ, it was submitted, made the decision to tackle the accused and it was unclear what had started first, the tackle or the punch. 419 It was not open to conclude, it was submitted, what the accused would have done before JZ had acted to stand his ground. 420 As for the cross examination of JZ about prior incidents, Mr McDonough submitted he downplayed those incidents and denied the degree of his guilt. 421 That might, it was submitted, reflect on JZ’s willingness to engage in aggressive behaviour when the situation warranted it. 422 The accused, it was submitted, may have felt as though he would need to take a proactive step in answer to the expected tackle before any contact. 423 JZ’s demeanour, it was suggested, was one of bravado and the history he gave of himself was consistent with that view of himself. 424 Mr McDonough noted JZ said he had owned a successful sales and marketing company that went into liquidation due to COVID, that he had assisted Steve and that it was in his nature to protect men and women. 425 We do not know what the accused would have done, the defence asked, if JZ had not tackled him and it would be wrong to conclude, suggested the defence, the accused would have violently attacked without JZ shaping up to take him down. 426 Further, submitted Mr McDonough, nobody saw the accused with the knife; he had been shirtless with his hands outstretched and his pants had no pockets. 427 Injuries to the hand of the accused, it was submitted, could have been caused as he had grasped the knife by the blade to get hold of it from someone else. 428 The evidence about contact only came from JZ, submitted the defence, and he was neither credible, given his demeanour, or reliable. 429 JZ was, it was submitted, prone to embellishment and to paint himself in the best possible light, and that affects the weight of his evidence and his credit. 430 Further going to JZ’s reliability, submitted the defence, JZ had speculated about when and how certain things happened. 431 JZ was also, it was noted, someone who suggested alternatives, for example, between knowing when he was punched versus when he was stabbed. 432 Based on the evidence of JZ, it was submitted, the Court could not be certain of a timeline for when his injuries occurred during the fight and it was reasonably possible that they had occurred during the chokehold. -- 29 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 28 433 If the injuries to JZ had occurred during that chokehold then, it was submitted, stabbing JZ would have been a reasonably proportionate act by the accused in response to the threat of choking. 434 The genuineness of belief of self-defence on the part of the accused, submitted the defence, reasonably possibly arose at the time of the tackle. 435 It was then that the accused had been under threat, it was submitted, and his response manifested later in time when he stabbed JZ as a reasonably proportionate reaction to the chokehold. 436 The hole in the prosecution case, the defence submitted, was it had not excluded that anybody else there that night had introduced the knife. That was because, it was submitted, there was no evidence from the others who were there. 437 The prosecution had, it was submitted, therefore failed to exclude the reasonable possibility the accused had grabbed the knife from one of those others, and he had got injured that way. 438 It is also a reasonable possibility, submitted the defence, JZ had known about the knife, as he said he did in his evidence, because he had brought there. 439 The defence relied on JZ’s evidence in chief that he believed the knife had been broken in the fight and the evidence of Detective Davies that he had not told JZ the knife had a broken tip. 440 It had not been excluded, submitted the defence, that the accused perceived a threat from the men in front of him at the park and at the time of the charged acts the accused reasonably believed it necessary to stab JZ. 441 On the prosecution case, it was submitted by the defence, the Court would have to find the accused intended to stab JZ and exclude the reasonable possibility that he did not have the knife, at some point during the fight. Count One- Consideration Count One- Elements of the offence 442 The prosecution must prove (1) the accused performed an act (2) it was voluntary and deliberate (3) BH suffered harm (4) the accused voluntary act or acts caused that harm (5) he intended to cause harm (6) his act was unlawful and (7) the accused had been in company with another. 443 In respect of that sixth element, self-defence is in issue. 444 I considered Count One in respect only of the evidence admissible in relation to that charge. -- 30 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 29 445 Identity is not in dispute; the accused is the man BH said punched him.21 446 Both parties relied on the evidence of KM and BH the accused offered an apology to BH and kicked him. 447 That is an uncharged act and evidence of discreditable conduct. 448 Evidence about that uncharged act is relevant to Count One going to the honesty and reliability of KM and BH, to explain the whole of their interactions with the accused, to provide context and to whether BH suffered harm and the accused’s voluntary act had caused that harm. 449 I used that evidence for those purposes only and not for any other. 450 I have not reasoned simplistically because the accused had done bad things in the past he is a bad person and the sort of person more likely to have committed the crimes with which he is charged in these proceedings. Count One- The real issues 451 There are three real issues or questions in respect of Count One: (1) Did the accused punch BH to his left cheek? (2) Did the accused cause harm to BH by that punch? and (3) Has the prosecution excluded self-defence? 452 Did the accused punch BH to the left cheek? 453 BH and KM are the crucial witnesses. 454 While the defence accepted they were both trying to tell the truth Mr McDonough submitted they were unreliable witnesses for several reasons: the passage of time; the mental impact of these incidents; and intoxication. 455 I consider BH and KM honest witnesses who tried to tell the truth.22 456 As for their reliability, I kept in mind these events happened about 19 months before the trial and memory does diminish over time. 21 He was subject to home detention electronic monitoring at the time of this incident which showed he was in the relevant areas at the relevant times. On 29 February 2024, BH made a photo identification of the accused; Agreed Facts, 19 and 20. 22 BH’s admitted actions in smashing the window of the car back at his camp site did not impact adversely on my consideration of his honesty. I have accepted the submission BH was under great stress at that time. -- 31 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 30 457 Further, it clear BH and KM were impacted by these events.23 They had been shocked and upset by what occurred, both reported being hit to the head and said these events had happened very quickly. 458 That stress and trauma, and the elapse of time, impacted their recall. 459 For example, BH could not remember how long this incident had lasted and how he had got up and escaped. KM did not know how many times BH was kicked. 460 There were also differences between BH and KM as to what they recalled. 461 BH thought he went towards the approaching men when he heard them call out, while KM said the men had approached BH. 462 BH thought there were four on the hill, while KM said there were six. 463 KM thought maybe two men approached, while BH said it was three. 464 I gave those differences some weight as to reliability keeping in mind the speed with which the fight occurred and the upset and shock they had suffered. 465 There is no evidence BH under reported his alcohol consumption. His recollection was consistent with KM and NS, who both said he was not intoxicated. The police officer had smelt alcohol, but he also did not think BH was intoxicated. 466 That makes sense as BH, an adult male, had consumed about 8-10 standard strength beers in 6.5 hours; one every 40 to 50 minutes. 467 While he was not intoxicated, I kept in mind his alcohol consumption. 468 As for KM, there was less evidence about the alcohol she consumed. 469 BS Allely thought she was intoxicated but had not known KM before and had observed her in a heightened state. I give his observation limited weight.24 470 KM said she was not intoxicated, as did her mother. 471 I accept KM was not intoxicated but have kept her alcohol consumption in mind. 472 All those matters, on their own, in combination or collectively, have not caused me to doubt the reliability of the common evidence of KM and BH or their evidence where supported by other evidence I accept. 23 At T25.2-8 BH displayed his upset when recounting that his daughter had been with him at Port Victoria the previous weekend, at T55.20, KM became genuinely upset and she needed a moment to compose herself and at T65.36-38 KM remarked ‘I was scared, like it was just shock. The reason why I can’t remember everything is because my body went into shock’. 24 She had just been involved in four stressful incidents involving BH and her own reported assault. -- 32 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 31 473 That BH was punched to his left cheek makes sense; it was where he was injured and it was at that spot he required stitches. 474 I have accepted KM and BH’s evidence about the punch, BH going to ground, the kicks while he was on the ground and the later kick by the accused. 475 Any differences in description are not material to acceptance of those key facts having regard to the elapse of time, the speed with which these events happened, the upset to BH and KM and their alcohol consumption. 476 I accepted the evidence of BH the accused punched him underneath his left eye at his cheek bone with a blow sufficient to knock him down. 477 I accepted as reliable the evidence of BH and KM that: they heard someone call from the direction of the men; BH was punched to his left cheek and knocked to the ground and kicked while covering his face; and the same man who had punched BH later kicked him to his throat. Count One- Did the punch cause harm to BH? 478 KM first saw blood flowing from BH’s cheek at the pub. 479 The defence submitted it was unclear if that was from the punch or the kick. 480 What KM said about that though is of little weight. 481 She did not look at BH’s face after the punch as she had ‘just tried to keep her head down’ and get out of there. 482 BH was clear the kick was to his throat. KM said it was to above the neck. 483 I have preferred BH’s precise evidence that the kick was to his throat. 484 That was consistent with his recollection afterward he was short of breath and his evidence was inherently more reliable as he had suffered that blow.25 485 There is no evidence the kick was to his left cheek and I have excluded that as a reasonable possibility consistent with innocence. 486 I am satisfied the accused voluntarily and deliberately punched BH to his left eye, caused him harm in doing so and did that in company with another. Count One- Was the accused acting in self-defence? 487 The prosecution must also prove the accused did not act in self-defence in striking that blow in at least one of two ways.26 25 There was also no evidence BH’s cut occurred when on the ground getting kicked as BH and KM both said he had covered his head. 26 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 15. -- 33 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 32 488 First, the prosecution can establish the accused did not genuinely believe his conduct was necessary and reasonable to defend himself. 489 Second, the prosecution can establish his conduct was not, in the circumstances as he genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat he genuinely believed he faced. 490 The prosecution contended the accused did not genuinely believe his conduct - the punch- was necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose. 491 In assessing the accused’s state of mind, I looked at all the circumstances, including what he and BH and KM and the others present said and did. 492 The prosecution relied on several established facts as circumstantial evidence to prove the accused state of mind and exclude self-defence. 493 The prosecution submitted the only reasonable inference open on the whole of the evidence is that the accused was the aggressor and started the fight with BH. 494 I weighed all the evidence and decided what inferences could be drawn having regard to my experience of life and commonsense. 495 A verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the circumstances relied upon exclude any rational or reasonable hypothesis, or theory, or explanation, consistent with innocence. 496 I accepted a punch was thrown by the accused to the left cheek of BH. 497 I accepted before that punch the men who had approached made a slur towards BH and BH verbally and in a non-threatening way rejected that slur. 498 There is no evidence BH or KM were aggressive or threatening towards the accused or the men with the accused at any time. 499 That BH said he went towards the men in response to what was said, has not impacted my conclusion the accused and at least one other approached BH and that KM and BH had not acted in a threatening way. 500 In any event, the accused could have easily returned to the car park or run off in any other direction, at any time, before he struck BH. 501 Having regard to all the circumstances going to Count One, I am satisfied the accused was the aggressor and BH did not provoke the punch to his left cheek. 502 I am satisfied the accused therefore did not genuinely believe his conduct, in punching BH, was necessary and reasonable to defend himself. -- 34 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 33 503 I have excluded any rational or reasonable hypothesis, or theory, or explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused, that he genuinely believed his conduct in punching BH necessary and reasonable to defend himself. 504 It was not necessary, given that, to consider the second way the prosecution could exclude self-defence in respect of Count One. 505 Nonetheless, after consideration of the accused’s conduct objectively, I am satisfied the prosecution has excluded the conduct of the accused, in the circumstances as he genuinely believed them to be, was reasonably proportionate to the threat the accused genuinely believed to exist. 506 Putting myself in the accused’s shoes, facing the situation and the threat he thought he was facing as I have found, there were a few relevant principles I considered when deciding whether his conduct was reasonably proportionate. 507 One can use more force than faced but there is a limit where the force used is so much greater than the threat and it becomes excessive, or disproportionate. 508 Also a person generally cannot be expected to calmly and carefully judge how much force to use when faced with violence. 509 I considered the options the accused had available, including, as I have found, that he could have run away or escaped. 510 Further, he had also been in the company of at least one other man. 511 Self-defence is not a last resort, but the availability of those other options in this case, has led to my conclusion the accused’s actions were excessive in circumstances where he was under no threat from BH. 512 Punching BH was not, in those circumstances as he genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat he genuinely believed to exist. 513 The force the accused used was excessive or disproportionate and he could have easily escaped from the area of these events. Count One- Conclusion as to guilt 514 For the reasons explained, I am satisfied the prosecution has proved in respect of Count One that (1) the accused performed an act or acts (2) his act or acts were voluntary and deliberate (3) BH suffered harm (4) the accused’s voluntary act or acts caused that harm (5) the accused intended to cause harm (6) the accused’s act or acts were unlawful and (7) the accused had been in company with another. 515 I am satisfied the accused is guilty of Count One. -- 35 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 34 Count Two- Consideration Count Two- The elements of the offence 516 The prosecution must also prove in respect of Count Two seven elements: (1) the accused performed an act, or acts; (2) the act or acts had been voluntary and deliberate (3) JZ suffered harm (4) the accused’s voluntary act or acts had caused that harm (5) the accused intended to cause harm and (6) the accused’s act or acts had been unlawful and (7) the accused had used an offensive weapon. 517 Self-defence again is in issue and must be excluded. 518 I considered Count Two separately with respect only to the evidence admissible in respect of that charge. 519 In respect of Count Two, it is not in dispute the accused stabbed JZ four times, that JZ suffered harm, the accused voluntary acts caused that harm, and that the accused had intended to cause that harm and had used the knife. 520 I am satisfied, having regard to the whole of the evidence I accept, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh elements of Count Two have been proved. 521 In respect of Count Two, both parties relied on the evidence of KM and BH with respect to Count One and their evidence about whether the accused had offered an apology to BH and kicked him afterward, for limited purposes. 522 For reasons already explained, I accepted BH and KM as honest and reliable witnesses in respect of the crucial facts of Count One. 523 I consider also that they were honest and reliable witnesses in respect of Count Two, subject to keeping in mind the matters noted in respect of Count One. 524 As for the specific evidence about the uncharged act- the kick to the throat - that is evidence of discreditable conduct in respect of Count Two.27 525 I used the evidence concerning Count One and the discreditable conduct evidence to consider the honesty and reliability of KM and BH, to explain their whole interactions with the accused, to provide context and to consider if the prosecution had excluded self-defence. 526 I did not use it to reason as the accused committed Count One or kicked BH to the throat he is more likely to commit Count Two. Count Two- The real issues 527 In respect of Count Two, self-defence is in issue. I will not repeat what I have said about self-defence other than note I have approached it in the same way. 27 Evidence Act 1929 (SA), s 34P. -- 36 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 35 528 The real issues in respect of self-defence and Count Two are: 1) Was the accused the aggressor? 3) When did the accused first stab JZ? 529 There is no dispute the accused was the man involved in the fight with JZ.28 530 It was reasonably possibly true, submitted the defence, the accused had realised that it was BH walking toward him with the other men, and given their earlier interaction, that he perceived he was under threat. 531 I understand the defence contention of self-defence has several components. 532 The defence urged me to consider it reasonably possibly true: the accused was not the aggressor; the accused did not have the knife at the beginning of this fight; the accused took the knife off JZ or someone else in the group once the fighting had begun; when JZ put the accused in a chokehold the accused genuinely believed he was under threat; and the accused acted at that time in a reasonably proportionate manner to that threat and stabbed JZ four times. 533 It is not known, submitted the defence, what the accused would have done if he had not been tackled by JZ, as there was no evidence he had his hands up as he had approached BH or that he had been asking him to fight. 534 The defence submitted it could not be inferred the accused had intended to attack BH before JZ had intervened. 535 A verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution exclude any rational or reasonable hypothesis, or theory, or explanation, consistent with innocence. 536 I considered if it was reasonably possibly true the accused was trying to get away when he ran at the group or if there is some other explanation why he went toward the group, consistent with his innocence. 537 While the prosecution relied on my acceptance of the evidence of JZ and BH as honest and reliable, the defence submitted JZ was neither. 538 I detailed the proper approach to the assessment of witnesses when discussing Count One. I assessed JZ in that way in respect of Count Two. 539 Going to whether he was trying to tell me the truth, the defence and prosecution made submissions about his demeanour. 28 Agreed Facts, 19, 20 and 21. -- 37 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 36 540 I observed JZ carefully. He was by turn effusive, confident and full of braggadocio and then anxious, nervous and without artifice. 541 JZ had clearly thought a lot about what had happened and was bursting to get his evidence out. His style tended to fast monologue. 542 I consider JZ saw himself as a protector of BH and KM that night. 543 He also had thought he could handle the accused as he approached and described how he stood his ground, prepared for impact and wrestled the accused. 544 JZ said during the fight he had feared for his life, been scared and had not realised there had been a knife until Steve called out or that he had known he had been stabbed until he got back to the house. 545 JZ said when he realised there was a knife, he had run away. 546 He also frankly acknowledged the serious hurt this incident had caused him. 547 JZ tended at times to elaborate and speculate. He strayed occasionally from the question and several times commentated about matters beyond the question. 548 I considered JZ had worked very hard to remember what had happened and had tried hard to assist the court in that respect. 549 JZ was anxious to understand what had happened to him and it was obvious he had replayed these events over in his head many times. 550 Demonstrating that witnesses can be very different, BH and KM said the opposite. They said they had worked hard to forget what had happened. 551 I was cautious about giving too much weight to demeanour and manner. Witnesses do differ in character and personality and it is well understood that giving evidence is a difficult and stressful experience. 552 As with KM and BH, these events had happened about 19 months before the trial, and JZ’s recollection had been impacted by the effluxion of time. 553 JZ had also been hurt, airlifted to hospital and fearful about the injuries he had suffered during these events, which happened very quickly. 554 I kept in mind in assessing JZ the impact of trauma and stress and how quickly fights happen. 555 Going to support his honesty, JZ maintained he had not seen a knife. 556 Eroding his earlier bravado, JZ said he had sprinted away, was scared, thought he was going to die, had panicked and was a bit dazed. -- 38 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 37 557 In cross examination about his prior offending, he readily accepted those embarrassing incidents in his past had happened. In that respect, I do not consider he downplayed his guilt. Rather, I assessed him to be defensive and embarrassed about what he had done and keen to report he had improved himself. To his credit, he was candid about previously having a problem with alcohol. 558 In describing his injuries, JZ said in chief ‘I believe a knife was broken throughout the fight as well, had broken or snapped off somewhere’. 559 In cross-examination he said his belief that during the altercation the tip had broken came ‘after discussing [sic] with the detective on numerous occasions’.29 560 The defence relied on that evidence about JZ’s belief the knife had been broken in the fight, as going to his credit and as Detective Davies said had not told JZ the knife had a broken tip, to contend it could not be excluded JZ had known something about the knife and may have had it first. 561 There is no evidence the broken tip had happened ‘throughout the fight’. 562 I had regard to the evidence of Davies he told JZ ‘[n]othing about a broken knife at all’ together with the evidence the accused had a cut to his hand 563 The belief of JZ, that cut and those exchanges with counsel did not cause me to doubt JZ’s denial the knife was his or to conclude it is reasonably possibly true JZ may have had the knife first in his fight with the accused.30 564 There is no evidence: the knife was JZ’s; JZ had the knife at any time; the accused took the knife from JZ; that anyone else in JZ’s group had the knife; or the accused took the knife from anyone else. 565 There is no evidence JZ knew anything about the knife at the time the conduct alleged in Count Two occurred. 566 JZ’s evidence of his belief about the broken knife and the cut to the accused hand have not caused me to doubt JZ about the crucial facts: the accused attacked him and he felt a punch and sharpness to his left back where he was stabbed. 567 While JZ’s idiosyncratic approach to giving evidence did impact its narrative force, it did not cause me to conclude he was not trying to tell the truth. 568 In assessing his reliability, all those matters mentioned have also been relevant, and I assessed JZ’s reliability against the other evidence I accept. 569 JZ, it was found later, had been stabbed where he said he had been punched, and where he had recalled a sharp feeling. 29 T107-108; T111. 30 T159.17-21. -- 39 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 38 570 That supports the drawing of an inference the punch by the accused to JZ’s back was a stab using the knife. 571 JZ’s admission to the Royal Adelaide Hospital confirmed he had four stab wounds consistent with having been caused by a knife or other sharp object.31 572 There is no dispute JZ suffered a three-to-five-centimetre laceration to his left posterior flank consistent with his evidence of the punch and sharp pain.32 573 A knife was found by police at the scene with JZ’s and the accused DNA.33 574 Further, JZ’s other evidence was consistent with other evidence I accept. 575 BH, KM and JZ all said they had met randomly that night and BH and KM had asked for help and the others agreed to escort them back to the caravan park. 576 BH, KM and JZ said it was dark as they walked down the pathway. 577 The map of the area prepared by the Police crime scene investigator, together with the photographs he took of the scene, confirmed their recollections of a small area in the caravan park containing bushes, a pathway and cabins.34 578 There were nonetheless differences between what BH and JZ recalled. 579 BH said his third interaction with the accused was as he walked that path and the accused had jumped out to ‘go to attack him’ and said something.35 580 NS heard commotion from the area of the cabins about that time. 581 I accept BH thought the accused was attacking him at that point because the accused had jumped out of the bushes and was coming at his group making noise. 582 It is also relevant to BH’s assessment he was going to be attacked that he had been assaulted by the accused twice earlier that night. 583 BH was clear; the accused came at him and JZ knocked him out of the way. 584 JZ also said the accused had come at the group running and screaming from near the cabins. 585 JZ said he thought at some point he was the target. 586 He determined then, he said, to stand still and brace for contact. 31 Agreed Facts 6. 32 Ibid, 3. 33 Exhibit P9. 34 Exhibit P6, P7 and P8. 35 In chief at T22.25 and in cross- examination at T24.28. -- 40 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 39 587 JZ though could not recall pushing BH out the way. 588 Neither JZ nor BH saw the accused carrying anything in his hands. 589 BH said after he was pushed aside, JZ and the accused were on the ground. 590 BH could not assist with how that wrestling had started due to being pushed out the way and as he then left shortly thereafter to go back to his campsite and could not say how that wrestling progressed. 591 JZ said he was punched by the accused upon impact with a round house motion to his left back. That was the spot where Dr Dobbin said JZ was stabbed. 592 JZ said he then rag dolled the accused to the ground, they wrestled and punched each other, and he tried an unsuccessful choke hold. 593 The injuries to the accused supported that JZ had been punching him. 594 That BH and JZ did not give identical descriptions about when they first saw the accused does not cause me to doubt the common features of their evidence. 595 BH and JZ were impacted by these events. That stress and trauma, and the elapse of time, impacted their recall and in the circumstances of this fight, it was unsurprising their recollections differed. 596 They may also have seen the accused at slightly different times and differing angles. The map and the photos taken of the scene are instructive about that. They located the cabins and bushes in the areas reported by JZ and BH. 597 JZ and BH both said the accused made noise and was saying something. 598 It makes sense as posited by the defence that the accused had recognised BH, and that BH was the initial subject of the accused’s attention. 599 I accepted the common evidence of BH and JZ that it was the accused who had come towards them and their group. 600 I accepted the evidence of BH he thought the accused was coming at him and JZ had moved or knocked him out of way. 601 While JZ could not recall doing that, it makes sense BH was the target of the accused advance and JZ had acted as BH said he did. 602 JZ surmised the accused was the man BH said had earlier attacked him. 603 JZ had assumed the role of protector and things had happened quickly. 604 I am satisfied the accused collided into JZ and swung a punch to JZ’s rear left back. -- 41 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 40 605 That punch makes sense and is plausible for several reasons. 606 The accused is right hand dominant and that would have been the area connected by a swinging right hand punch, as JZ had described it. 607 The left posterior back of JZ was an area where the accused had been stabbed. 608 JZ had felt a sharp pain consistent with being stabbed when struck. 609 The accused had before that been coming at BH aggressively. 610 I am satisfied the accused intended to attack BH and when JZ substituted himself had intended to attack JZ. 611 In being so satisfied I had regard to the submission there is no evidence the accused asked to fight. He was though coming at the group, with no shirt and making a noise and as both BH and JZ described it, at speed and aggressively. 612 There is no evidence JZ shaped up to fight after he moved BH out of the way. I have accepted he stood and braced himself for contact. 613 I am satisfied the accused intended to attack BH and then attacked JZ and then stabbed JZ to the back with a round house swing with his dominant hand. 614 There is no evidence the accused knew of any propensity for violence on the part of BH or of JZ, or of any of the others in the group. 615 There is no evidence any of those men had known each other before. 616 There is no evidence the group knew the accused was in the park. 617 Neither BH or JZ approached or provoked the accused. The group was walking along the path to safely return BH and KM, as they had asked. 618 The evidence of BH and KM and JZ was they had wanted to go back to the caravan. That makes sense, they were staying there and KM’s mother was there. 619 Each of BH and JZ thought the actions of the accused to be aggressive. 620 It is implausible the accused was coming through the group in the way the witnesses described- aggressively- to get away. 621 If the accused wanted to get away he could have gone in any other direction; to the cabins or into the bushes and the dark. 622 I excluded as a reasonable possibility consistent with innocence the accused had come at the group in the manner I have found, intending to escape or get away. 623 Mr McDonough submitted nobody had seen the accused with the knife and the accused had been shirtless, hands outstretched and his pants had no pockets. -- 42 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 41 624 As I have understood it, that was put to suggest it was reasonably possibly true the accused did not then have the knife as a component of the further submission that someone else had the knife and the accused was not the aggressor. 625 The defence said the evidence did not establish the accused wanted a fight. 626 The prosecution submitted the only reasonable inference was the accused had the knife in his dominant hand and stabbed JZ with it, as they contacted. 627 I accept the accused had a significant cut to that hand and that is consistent with him having held the knife by the blade at some point. 628 It is not evidence, of itself, that the accused took the knife off someone else or that another person had the knife. There is no evidence someone else had the knife or that the accused had removed the knife from someone else’s grasp. 629 I have excluded as a reasonable possibility the accused was trying to get away or that he was not the aggressor or that he considered he was under threat. 630 I am satisfied when the accused collided with JZ he was the aggressor, and that he started the fight with JZ. 631 The accused aggressively approached toward BH and the group at speed, making noise and with his shirt off. 632 In respect of self-defence to Count Two, there were therefore those two scenarios as to when and how the stabbing had occurred. 633 I have found the prosecution case proved that the accused stabbed JZ just before or at the time of their collision by swinging a right arm round house punch to JZ’s posterior back holding the knife. 634 The defence contended a second scenario to be reasonably possibly true: • the accused was threatened by BH and the group; • JZ was the aggressor; • the accused did not have the knife; • the accused during the fight took the knife from JZ or another person; • the accused genuinely believed JZ was choking him; and • the accused stabbed JZ while held in that chokehold. 635 For the reasons explained, the prosecution has excluded that scenario as a reasonable explanation, hypothesis or theory consistent with innocence. -- 43 of 44 -- [2025] SADC 141 42 636 I have been satisfied the prosecution established the accused did not genuinely believe his conduct necessary and reasonable to defend himself because he was the aggressor and he had started the fight. 637 The scenario postulated by the defence going to self-defence was premised on the accused not being the aggressor from the outset. 638 Given the accused started the fight, and even assuming the balance of that defence scenario to be reasonably possibly true, the accused could not have genuinely believed his conduct necessary and reasonable to defend himself. 639 The accused cannot start a fight, pick up a weapon, use it to stab JZ and claim self-defence. 640 I am satisfied the prosecution has excluded, in respect of Count Two, the accused acted in self-defence. Count Two- Conclusion as to guilt 641 I am satisfied the prosecution has proved in respect of Count Two each element of the charged offence that (1) the accused performed an act or acts (2) his act or acts were voluntary and deliberate (3) BH suffered harm (4) the accused’s voluntary act or acts caused that harm (5) the accused intended to cause harm (6) the accused’s act or acts were unlawful and the prosecution has excluded self- defence and (7) the accused used an offensive weapon, namely a knife. Verdict 642 The accused is guilty of each of the two counts of Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm. -- 44 of 44 --