The real question for a jury in the trial of five people charged over the death of Bobby Medcraft was whether it was a case of murder or manslaughter, defence counsel Fran McCracken says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Ms McCracken said that the critical issue was what was in the mind of Cody Sheehan who struck Mr Medcraft with a sword.
Mr Sheehan, 33, Geoffrey James Deverell, 37, Lucas Shane Ford, 31, Michael William Hanlon, 54, and Kelsey Maree Ford, 24, have pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Medcraft at Downlands in the early hours of March 29, 2020.
The Crown alleges all five were present when Mr Medcraft was struck with a sword to the back of the leg and that all are criminally responsible. The Crown alleges they formed a common purpose to inflict violence on Mr Medcraft and that death was a probable consequence. The Crown also suggests the five aided and abetted the alleged murder.
Mr Sheehan gave evidence that he swung the sword in a backhand motion in self defence.
The jury heard that the issue revolved around whether Mr Sheehan ought to have known that a strike with a sword was likely to cause death. Ms McCracken, representing Ms Ford, said that death was not the inevitable outcome of a cut to the leg.
"If it was to the head or torso anyone in their right mind would know it had the potential to cause death but this is a leg injury," she said.
Defence counsel for Mr Deverrell, Patrick O' Halloran, said that his client was 20 metres away in a standoff with Mr Medcraft's friend Jake McDonald when Mr Medcraft died. He said the dispersal of people when they emerged from cars at Ritchie avenue undermined the prosecution theory of common purpose.
The Crown urged jury members to examine the sword in assessing whether Mr Sheehan ought to have known that his chop was likely to cause death.
"Have a look at it, weigh it in your hands, look at how sharp it is, look at how big it is and look at the pictures of the injuries it caused," prosecutor Jack Shapiro said.
He said the jury should look at the nature of the weapon and the nature of the blow delivered.
Mr Shapiro said any reasonable person would realise, if they had stopped and thought about it, that a chop with the sword was likely to cause death.
He said that all five defendants had an unlawful common purpose to find and inflict physical violence on Mr Medcraft.
He said the agreement started when they got in a silver Suzuki and loaded weapons-cricket bats and the sword.
"By their actions at Ritchie avenue they confirmed that they agreed to this level of violence," he said.
Mr Shapiro said that the Ms Ford and Mr Ford were the "ones driving this."
He said Ms Ford was the person who drove the car as if it was something normal on a Saturday night.
Mr Shapiro said evidence showed how angry Ms Ford was about Mr Medcraft's visit to her house at 2.30am and his stupid threats.
He said that it was complete and utter nonsense that Ms Ford had not seen her brother smash the back windscreen of the car they were pursuing.
He said she had got out of the car and held back Kalinda Morrisson [Mr Medcraft's partner from going to his aid.
"Kalinda was absolutely firm about this when she said that they were going to kill him that Ms Ford said: "I don't give a f---'," he said.
"Even though she did not touch the deceased does not mean she is not criminally responsible -it wouldn't have happened but for her."
"And then there was Lucas Ford saying [to Mr Medcraft] 'You f---ed with the wrong family'."
Mr Shapiro said the telling of lies to police when they arrived at Ritchie Avenue demonstrated that the defendants were still all acting together.
Ms Ford's defence counsel, Fran McCracken, said that when Ms Ford grabbed Ms Morrisson she was not assisting [aiding or abetting] Mr Sheehan but stopping Ms Morrisson from getting hurt.
"That is plausible," she said.
Ms McCracken said the case was a complex one and the verdict was quite complex for each of the accused.
She urged the jury to be dispassionate about their deliberations despite the tragedy of Mr Medcraft's death.
"Whether the actions were manslaughter or murder you have to look at what was in Cody Sheehan's mind when he struck the deceased or what he ought to have thought about," she said.
"Was there a real chance that this was the likely outcome or if you have a doubt, if you think Cody Sheehan went off the rails that is not a probable consequence."
She said that if Mr Sheehan was not guilty none of the other four defendants could be found guilty.
Mr O' Halloran will continue to sum up on Thursday followed by counsel for Mr Hanlon, Paul Sullivan, and depending on time counsel for Mr Sheehan, Greg Richardson.
With no sitting on Friday Justice Robert Pearce is unlikely to address the jury until next week.
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner
Nick Clark
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
