Victim was ‘monster’, jury told

Was it murder, or just a young man trying to protect himself?

That is the question at the heart of a High Court trial in Auckland.

The accused, who has name suppression, killed his father last year at his Auckland home after his father had brutalised his mother. The Crown claims that when the accused stabbed his father six times it amounted to murder, while the defence says the young man ‘‘did his best to save himself’’.

Yesterday Crown prosecutor Gareth Kayes began his closing by arguing the defence had created a ‘‘monster’’ in the deceased to try to advance their case. At the start of the trial, the defence told the jury the deceased was ‘‘Jake the Muss’’ who would violently beat his wife and inflict fear upon his family.

Kayes told the jury: to remember their task was to determine if the young man was guilty of murder. ‘‘Your role in this trial is not to judge the father. Your role is to decide if the defendant is guilty in law of his death.

‘‘The defendant is guilty of murder even if the person he killed is not likeable and whose actions you don’t approve of.’’

However, defence lawyer Denise Wallwork reiterated that the deceased was a ‘‘monster’’ who had terrorised his family.

‘ ‘‘The only aggressor on the [night of the death] was the [deceased],’’ she said.

She reminded the jury how the defendant’s mother had said the deceased would rape her if she did not agree to have sex with him. Wallwork also pointed to evidence of how the defendant often saw his mother get beatings, and would sometimes take beatings himself.

‘‘He systematically subjected [his wife] to high levels of violence. [The accused] witnessed this as well as being a victim of hidings himself.’’

On the night of the death, the deceased had severely beaten his wife to the point where her eye had partially dislodged.

She made her way to her son’s house, who is the accused, where a number of the family were.

Shortly afterwards, the father came to the property and began shouting abuse and intimidating the family. He left for a short time before returning.

The family locked the house and hid. The father continued to shout threats and beat on the windows of the house.

After some time, the family saw a car exiting the property. It was at this point the defendant went outside armed with a knife.

What happened next is slightly unclear.

The defendant claims his father came out of the darkness and punched him.

He then began to assault him; the young man retaliated by stabbing him.

Kayes said it was obvious the defendant wasn’t ‘‘cowering’’ from his father, but that the evidence showed he was angry and armed with a butcher’s knife.

‘‘This was a significant attack with a lethal weapon.’’

He told the jury the force used by the young man on his father was excessive and amounted to murder.

‘‘The Crown say the actions were not reasonable in the circumstances he believed them to be.

‘‘In other words, they were excessive.’’

However, Wallwork told the jury her client believed his life was under threat when he stabbed his father.

‘‘The terror was real, imminent and life threatening,’’ she said.

The jury has can find the young man guilty of murder, manslaughter or not guilty.

Justice Ailsa Duff will give her closing remarks today before the jurors begin their deliberations.