Maketū murder trial: Toddler suffered 'severe reign of terror' during attack, court told

Aaron George Izett, 38, has been on trial in the High Court at Rotorua. Photo / File

A jury has heard closing addresses from the Crown and defence lawyers in the trial of Maketū father accused of murdering his 2-year-old daughter.

The jury must decide whether Aaron George Izett, 38, was insane at the time or whether, as the Crown has alleged, Izett's "meth rage" led to him killing his daughter and assaulting three other people.

Izett is on trial in the High Court at Rotorua defending a murder charge after Nevaeh Jahkaya Whatukura Ager's body was found by police on the tidal flats at Little Waihi in Maketū on March 21 last year.

Pathologist Rexson Tse previously gave evidence Nevaeh sustained multiple bruises and abrasions to her body caused by a weapon or weapons, and there could have been up to 70-80 blows.

The Crown told the jury after Izett assaulted his daughter he placed her naked body face-down in the water on mudflats and put two large boulders or rocks, on top of her.

The pathologist said Nevaeh drowned but may have survived if not placed in the water.

Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery QC told the jury today Izett's violent assault of his daughter and the multiple injuries inflicted on her were "brutal in the extreme".

Raftery said Nevaeh would have suffered a "severe reign of terror" from Izett's sustained assault and the force used "spoke volumes" about his intentions.

The Crown alleged Izett's "meth rage" led to him killing his daughter and assaulting three other people, including a police officer.

Izett has accepted responsibility for causing the fatal injuries but denies he had murderous intent when he did so.

Raftery said the Crown's evidence showed Izett "was not so out of it" he could not have intentionally committed the crimes he was charged with and the "only proper verdict" for the jury on the murder charge was guilty.

Nevaeh Ager, 2, died in March 2019. Photo / File

Raftery said the defence was largely relying on an insanity defence but two psychiatrists who had given independent evidence about Izett's state of mind at the time agreed Izett was not suffering from schizophrenia at the time and there was also no evidence of any history of a mental illness.

"So it comes back to the drugs he was taking around the relevant period," he said.

Raftery said drug-intoxicated intent was still intent and did not excuse the accused from being responsible for the crimes he allegedly committed when he took the drugs voluntarily.

"Undoubtedly at about 8pm on March 21, Mr Izett had recreational levels of methamphetamine and cannabis in his system.

"We have also confirmation from an independent ESR forensic scientist that he would have had a much higher level of the drugs in his system earlier.

Izett told the jury he had not taken any drugs since March 17.

But later in evidence, Izett claimed on March 18 he was forced by gang members to drink some water laced with methamphetamine.

Raftery said this was a "load of nonsense" as Izett never gave that explanation to police or doctors who interviewed him.

"The whole story is to try to explain away the enormity of the crime against his daughter, and trying to manipulate us."

The Crown also pointed to Izett's admission he lied to the doctors.

In the defence's closing, defence lawyer Julie-Anne Kincade QC told the jury Izett lacked the necessary intent to be found guilty of murder or should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

She urged the jury to put any feelings of prejudice and sympathy to one side.

She said there was evidence and plenty of other signs of Izett suffering a psychosis from the various witness reports of his erratic behaviour and being out of touch with reality.

Kincade said Izett's use of methamphetamine did not explain his behaviour and there were clearly other things going on in his mind that were not linked to drug-taking.

"When you look at all the evidence there is absolutely no evidence that Mr Izett intended to kill his daughter, but whatever was going on in his mind it was not logical."

She said the defence submitted Izett was "suffering from a disease of the mind" at the time and not capable of understanding his actions were morally wrong.

Kincade said there was evidence about that from psychiatrist Dr Justin Barry -Walsh.

"The fact that the doctors did not diagnose schizophrenia, does not mean it is not or was not there at the time."

She said it was clear Izett was suffering from a psychosis which meant his thinking was "entirely irrational".

Izett reported hearing voices, including a female voice threatening to kill him, and was also having hallucinations and grandiose thoughts such as being a prophet.

Izett has also pleaded not guilty to three further charges - wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault, and injuring with intent to injure.

The assault charge relates to Izett allegedly assaulting Nevaeh's great-grandfather, John Sturgess, on March 20, 2019, when he and his wife visited.

The other two charges relate to the alleged assaults of a police constable during Izett's arrest, and Jacob Reid, a neighbour in Maketū, between March 18 and March 21 last year.