In his evidence, the complainant said he was inside his house when he noticed Tipuna on the other side of the road “eyeing up” the property.
He ran outside and questioned Tipuna as to why. He said Tipuna challenged him to “one-offs” (a fist fight) and the pair met in the middle of the roadway and started swinging punches.
They tackled each other to the ground but he managed to get up. He wanted to keep the fighting fair and was pulling Tipuna back to his feet when Tipuna stabbed him.
He saw the knife. It was about 10cm long from the end of the handle to the tip of the blade.
Tipuna ran off. The complainant said he went inside briefly but feeling “pumped with adrenalin” pursued Tipuna, who fled to the home of family nearby.
He stood outside the house and yelled and challenging Tipuna to come out, but Tipuna remained inside.
Asked by Ms Cleary about his gang affiliation, the complainant, who has three large Ms tattooed on the front of his neck, said he used to be a Mongrel Mob associate but was not any more.
Tipuna is represented by counsel Adam Simperingham, assisted by counsel Heather Vaughn.
In cross-examination, Mr Simperingham put it to the complainant he had Tipuna in a headlock on the ground when Tipuna stabbed him. The complainant disagreed.
He confirmed he had four past convictions for violent offending spanning 2011 to 2017, including one for assaulting a police officer.
He denied challenging Tipuna to a similar fight the day before.
The second witness was Tipuna’s partner, who said she and Tipuna were pushing their baby in a pram on their way to church, walking the same route they always took, when the incident occurred.
She said the complainant was the initial aggressor. She did not pay much attention to the fight, as she was concerned for the safety of her baby, but thought it ended after Tipuna was head-locked on the ground.
She kept walking and did not see Tipuna again that day.
Under cross-examination, she recalled that immediately after the incident the complainant and “his whole family” came running out of their house with weapons, including a machete, tomahawk and hammers.
She said the complainant was misguided in his suspicions Tipuna was watching him or his property. Tipuna needed glasses and could not see as far as the complainant thought.
The third witness — Tipuna’s cousin — was eating breakfast when Tipuna burst through the door, tired from running, and saying he just stabbed a “mutt” (a derogatory term for a Mongrel Mob member). He was playing with his sock in which he had a knife.
When the complainant arrived there, the witness’s father tried to push Tipuna back outside to sort matters out but he refused, possibly because he was scared, the woman said.
She saw the complainant’s mother arrive in a car and take him away.
The fourth witness was the complainant’s father. He did not see the incident but heard the commotion and saw his son’s injury afterward. He confirmed following his son to the house where Tipuna went but denied taking an axe or sledge hammer with him.
Presiding judge Warren Cathcart told the defence team not to pursue questions as to weapons the complainant and his father might have carried when they pursued Tipuna after the incident.
It was irrelevant. What mattered was whether Tipuna perceived he was under significant threat and needed to act in self-defence when he stabbed the complainant.
Proceeding
