A dispute about the circumstances which led to a life threatening stabbing incident last year were further aired in the Supreme Court in Launceston on Wednesday.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In sentencing submissions for Daniel James Crisp differences were reignited over what happened in Mr Crisp's lounge room in the early hours of March 16, 2019.
Mr Crisp was found guilty, by a Supreme Court jury on Tuesday, of committing an unlawful act with the intention of causing bodily harm and that he did cause grievous bodily harm to Daniel James McNeill by stabbing him to the abdomen and chest several times with a knife.
However, he was found not guilty of assaulting Mr McNeill by punching him to the head a number of times.
Mr McNeill, who attended the sentencing hearing, and Crisp gave differing evidence during the trial of the antecedents.
Mr McNeill said he had been invited to the home by Mr Crisp's partner, who he met earlier at a hotel, and that he had consensual sexual relations.
However, Crisp gave evidence that he woke up and walked into the lounge room and acted to prevent Mr McNeill sexually assaulting his partner.
In the sentencing hearing on Wednesday, Crown prosecutor Peter Sherriff told acting Justice Shane Marshall that a discussion had taken place between the Crown and defence in which Mr Crisp would plead guilty to the grievous bodily harm charge.
"The Crown took instructions from the complainant and he provided advice that he could not accept the defendant's version of events and that the evidence he provided to preliminary proceedings in August was true and correct," he said.
However, defence counsel Grant Tucker submitted that the jury had accepted Crisp's version of events.
"He came out to a situation where McNeill was sexually assaulting or about to sexually assault his partner," he said.
"There can be no other explanation for the finding of not guilty to the assault.
"The jury was not critical about the use of the fists to get him out of the house but did find that he used excessive force in the use of the paring knife."
Mr Tucker said discussions about resolving the matter had taken place with the Crown in September.
"It was along the lines of the state accepting Mr Crisp's version about what he saw and thereafter using excessive force but that was not accepted by the state," he said.
"It could have resulted in an early guilty plea and would have avoided the necessity for a trial and Mr McNeill having to give evidence."
He said no criticism could be levelled against Crisp for declining to take the issue to a disputed facts hearing
Mr Sherriff tabled a victim impact statement from Mr McNeill which Mr Tucker took issue with.
He said Mr McNeill's complaint in the statement about the traumatising effect of publicity would have been avoided if he had accepted the plea.
Mr Tucker said Mr McNeill should look at his own behaviour rather than try to sheet home to his client the fact that his wife and children now lived away.
"We accept that he will have scars but we have seen no psychological reports to suggest that he suffers from PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder]," Mr Tucker said.
There was a degree of provocation because the incident occurred in Mr Crisp's home, he said.
Mr Tucker said that the finding of guilt would ordinarily attract a term of imprisonment.
"But this is not an ordinary case, he went to the defence of his partner who he genuinely believed was about to be raped by McNeill if he hadn't intervened," he said.
He said Crisp, a chef, was a stranger to violence and had no relevant prior convictions.
He urged acting Justice Marshall to wholly suspend any jail sentence or to consider a home detention order.
Mr Sherriff said the crime had been found to be more serious than causing grievous bodily harm.
Acting Justice Marshall ordered a pre-sentence report and adjourned the case to January 28 at 4pm.
After the hearing Mr McNeill approached Crown counsel saying he was "not happy".