Christopher Oakley on trial for aggravated carjacking, closing arguments heard

The credibility of an alleged carjacking victim, who a court heard was punched in the head and dragged from his car, will be central in deciding the fate of the accused perpetrator.

Alleged carjacker Christopher Oakley appeared in the County Court at Geelong on Tuesday, where the closing arguments in his trial were heard. Picture: Supplied.

A jury has heard the closing arguments in a trial over a “brutal carjacking”, with the case hinging on the credibility of a key witness painted by the defence as a liar.

Christopher Oakley is standing trial in the County Court in Geelong accused of aggravated carjacking, stemming from an incident on May 30 2021 on Birdsey St in Thomson.

It is alleged Mr Oakley, 28, snapped off the victim’s partially opened window, punched him in the face multiple times and dragged him out of the car before making off with the vehicle.

Afterwards, the alleged victim went to a fish and chip shop, where emergency services were called.

Mr Oakley has pleaded guilty to theft of a motor vehicle, the jury heard, but contests the carjacking.

Crown prosecutor Fraser Cameron told the jury on Tuesday they had three verdicts open to them – to find Mr Oakley guilty of aggravated carjacking, a lesser charge of carjacking or simply the car theft.

Both the prosecution and defence dedicated time to taking the jury through CCTV footage that partially captured the incident.

Mr Cameron argued it supported the prosecution's case, and described some of the defence’s suggestions as to what happened as “pretty silly”.

Mr Cameron conceded there were differences in the alleged victim’s various accounts but said they were not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

“He puts mayonnaise on it, he embellishes … I’m not going to suggest otherwise,” Mr Cameron said.

“On critical issues there is a significant level of consistency in what he is telling people.”

Both the prosecution and defence agreed that Mr Oakley lied to police when he was first interviewed.

His lawyer, barrister Liliana Dubroja, told the jury the prosecution’s case had “inherent deficiencies” because the alleged victim was someone who had “a very troubled relationship with the truth” and lied under oath.

Ms Dubroja said something clearly happened at the car, but the prosecution could not prove the intent necessary for aggravated carjacking.

Mr Oakley’s decision to steal it was a “rash, spontaneous decision”, she said, noting that he returned the car several hours later.

Ms Dubroja told the jury that when he took to the stand, the alleged victim was “evasive, cunning (and) dishonest” and someone who added “colourful details … to bolster his story”.

She said the same evidence the prosecution said supported the alleged victim’s account, showed him to “be either incorrect or a liar”.

She pointed to differences between the alleged victim’s account to police in body camera footage, in a police statement the next day, a second police statement a month later, his testimony at a committal hearing last year, and testimony during the trial.

Differences included whether or not a knife was involved, how many times the victim was punched and how, and if, he was physically dragged out of the car.

The accounts were “completely at odds” Ms Dubroja said.

The jury began their deliberations just after 3.30pm on Tuesday.

Originally published as Christopher Oakley on trial for aggravated carjacking, closing arguments heard