“You are also able to take into account inferences that can be drawn from evidence you heard and seen which is quite different from guessing or speculating on what those facts mean.
“Because the defendant shot someone after telling police he intended to take matters into his own hands if the people who earlier assaulted him and his partner came back, was another matter of speculation only.”
Niven put to the jury that what happened that day and the home invasion were “linked” and the defendant, who recognised the deceased, believed he had been associated with that previous event.
He also said the evidence from two medical experts was relevant, particularly Dr Craig Immelman’s view that the psychological impacts from the earlier assault had led to an acute distress disorder in the defendant.
The defendant still suffered symptoms today, and has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Niven said the defendant’s evidence was that the perpetrators of the earlier assault had threatened to come back, including telling him to “keep quiet” and not go to the police.
“You need to take into account what the experts say are some of the key characteristics of this disorder and any appropriate trigger that is directly relevant to his (the defendant’s) decision-making that night.”
He said this included a heightened sensitivity to a perceived threat when Harrison and his associate .turned up at the gate
“I suggest to you that this was the trigger that reignited the early trauma, and the defendant honestly and genuinely believed Jamin Harrison had a gun and that informed his decision-making about what to do.”
He said it was not accepted the deceased had gone to the property to “buy meth” from the defendant and the defence submitted Harrison had gone there for another “special purpose”.
Niven said the defendant “defaulted to thinking” the people in the car had “come to get him”.
Niven also pointed to the fact that the deceased cousin Janelle Nicholas had admitted she made a false statement to the police the police about what happened that night and open admitted being there when Jamin was shot when confronted the next day.
He also told the jury that the evidence of a local farmer, who saw two vehicles parked down the road from the shooting acting suspiciously, may well have been linked to the reason Harrison and Nicholas had gone to the property.
Nicholas had also sent two texts to her dead cousin after the shooting. which he suggested was an attempt to cover up her actions that night.
“The defendant does not accept he had murderous intent and says he acted to defuse a threat against him and his partner, and had bore no ill-will towards Harrison when he fired at the car, not the person.”
A police officer had believed the accused was genuinely upset when told Harrison had died, and the defendant and his partner gave some form of first aid to the shot man, and also called 111 for an ambulance, he said.
He also said the defendant knew what had done had been captured on CCTV footage and took steps to protect the hard-drive rather than hide or destroy it.
Niven said the defendant’s actions were “in defence of himself and his partner and the force he used in the circumstances, as he believed it to be, were reasonable”.
“I suggest to you there was no reasonable alternative open to him,” he said.
Niven urged the jury to find his client not guilty as the Crown had failed to prove the charge “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Crown prosecutor Richard Marchant said it was clear the defendant was guilty of “at least manslaughter”.
And in terms of the homicide, the defendant either acted with murderous intent or intended to cause the deceased “very serious harm”, knowing death was likely, and “shot him away”.
“The Crown says the defendant was angry and was seeking retribution for what happened earlier.
“The defendant was not under attack, his partner wasn’t under attack and he certainly was not acting in self-defence when he shot Jamin, within three seconds of getting up onto the grass embankment.
“If you accept this was a terrible accident, the defendant is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, but the Crown says the defendant must have seen Mr Harrison standing in front of the car, and he wasn’t shooting at the car. There was no firearm related damage to the vehicle. "
Marchant said the force used by the defendant was “totally unreasonable and out of all proportion” to what actually happened that night.
“He fired heavy-duty buck-shot down the channel at unarmed man who posed no imminent threat at all...You only need to see Jamin’s injuries, this was no terrible accident.”
He said Janelle Nicholas’ initial false statement to police was “perfectly understandable” as she feared for safety after the shooting.
And any suggestion the two other cars parked down the road around the time of the shooting could be linked to Harrison’s visit to the property was just a “defence theory”, with no supporting evidence, he said.
“The Crown says the defendant is guilty of murder or manslaughter.”
The trial presided over by Justice Grant Powell continues.
