Day three of trial for Matthew James Cooper who pleaded not guilty to choking in a domestic setting

A barrister has questioned whether the wife of a man accused of choking her would then sleep in the same bedroom with him after the alleged incident, while the prosecutor has highlighted the consistency of her evidence.

Matthew James Cooper appeared in the Bundaberg District Court.

The final pieces of evidence have been laid before the jury as part of an ongoing trial of a man accused of choking his ex-wife, the former CEO of the North Burnett Regional Council, in 2021.

Matthew James Cooper has pleaded not guilty to one charge of choking in a domestic setting in the Bundaberg District Court, with the trial reaching its third day on November 29, 2023.

Over the course of the trial, there was submissions from the prosecution and the defence as to the likelihood of Mr Cooper's former wife, Rachel Brophy exhibiting injuries as a result of the alleged choking which prosecutors claim with occurred in the early hours of May 17, 2021.

The court heard the doctor who personally examined Ms Brophy on the afternoon following the alleged early morning incident, did not observe bruising, but did observe swelling consistent with muscular injury.

On the morning of day three of the trial, the court heard from consultant forensic pathologist Dr Johan Duflou.

Matthew James Cooper has pleaded not guilty to one charge of choking.

According to Dr Duflou, when considering the circumstances of the alleged choking, it would have been “more likely than not” that injuries would have been visually present.

However, when cross-examined by Crown Prosecutor Erin Hanlon, Dr Duflou said he could not exclude the possibility of no injuries being visually present.

Following the questioning of Mr Duflou, the defence and prosecution presented their closing statements to the court and the jury.

Barrister for Mr Cooper, James Godbolt, began by sharing his understanding of the expected prejudices a jury might carry after seeing his client in the defence dock, behind a glass wall, with a police officer close by.

“You would be forgiven for thinking, given what you had just seen, ‘I wonder what he has done,’ and then you hear the charge read out,” he said.

“It is natural to feel revulsion at that point.”

He called on the jury to put aside prejudice and sympathy and decide the case on the evidence.

Former North Burnett Regional Council CEO Rachel Brophy (formerly Cooper).

“The facts of this case demonstrate, unequivocally, that Mr Cooper should be found not guilty of the offence,” Mr Godbolt said.

He said the allegations before the court were “unsupported” by evidence and referred to similar allegations as “genies in a bottle.”

“As soon as you say in this day and age ‘I’ve been choked’ if that is alleged against someone, regardless of whether there’s independent evidence to back that up, regardless of whether or not it makes sense … you end up here, in a criminal dock,” Mr Godbolt said.

Mr Godbolt also questioned the evidence provided by Ms Brophy, and the fact she followed her then husband into the kitchen, and slept in the same bedroom as him following the alleged choking.

“Does that make any sense to you?” he asked the jury.

Mrs Hanlon chose a different approach to her closing statements, commenting instead on the calm manner Ms Brophy presented when giving her evidence and being scrutinised as part of the cross-examination.

“I would say that her consistent demeanour is a factor you may consider that speaks to the truthfulness of her words,” she said.

Barrister James Godbolt outside the Supreme Court of Brisbane. Picture: Dan Peled / NCA NewWire

Mrs Hanlon also commented on the consistent evidence presented by multiple medical experts, all of whom agreed there are cases where choking occurred with no visible trauma.

“Ten to thirty-three per cent of cases do not show injuries, and I suggest that that’s not an insignificant portion of the cases,” she said.

She also told the court the diary pages presented to the court were firm evidence of Mr Cooper’s invasion of his then wife's privacy, as Ms Brophy had suspected throughout the last years of their marriage.

When discussing the alleged incident, Mrs Hanlon questioned the truthfulness of Mr Cooper’s evidence to the court that he was calm on the morning of the 17th when confronted over the missing phone, that he had offered Ms Brophy his phone and did not her.

“He claimed he wasn’t frustrated or hurt by those false allegations,” she said.

“He said that Rachel pushed his hand with the phone away, and what was his first instinct? To push her back.”

“I suggest that that doesn’t sit, that a person who is completely calm in that situation as he described, would immediately push her back in that situation.”

The trial is expected to proceed to deliberation on Thursday morning, November 30.