Jury urged to ignore political debate as they consider verdict in case of teen charged with murder

A Brisbane jury has been told not to be swayed by political debate around crime as they retire to deliberate on the case of a juvenile charged with murder.

Forensic police in Wilston in January 2023 after the death of David George Connolly. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail

A barrister representing a juvenile charged with murder has warned a jury not to be influenced by months of media coverage on “youth crime” and sternly reminded them “this trial is not about the state election” and not a chance to “express any political views” with their verdict.

The accused 18-year-old male, who was 17 at the time and cannot be identified, has admitted causing the death of 43-year-old David George Connolly, but pleaded not guilty to his murder on the basis of self defence.

Mr Connolly was stabbed in the chest by the youth with a knife containing a 26cm blade that caused a 14-15cm wound to his left lung shortly after midnight on January 22, 2023 in Wilston in Brisbane’s inner-north.

On the third day of the scheduled four-day trial, both sides gave their closing arguments to the jury before they retired to begin deliberations.

Defence barrister Michael Bonasia urged the jury to ignore outside noise on topics such as youth crime and the ongoing state election campaign.

“Don’t have regard to things we’ve been hearing every day for the last year of our lives about youth justice or youth crime,” he said.

“Forget about billboards, TV shows, newspaper articles, social media and political promises we have been bombarded with constantly in the past few weeks.

“This trial is not about a state election.

“This is not a popularity contest, this is not your opportunity to express any particularly political views. Political slogans do not matter in this trial.”

The incident occurred on January 22, 2023.

Mr Bonasia argued that CCTV footage, which allegedly captured low-quality audio of the incident, supported his client’s version of events by picking up keywords such as “chain”.

The accused gave evidence in his own defence on Tuesday saying he had asked Mr Connolly if he had picked up his girlfriend’s lost chain as he walked by, before claiming that Mr Connolly became angry with the repeated questioning and started punching him.

Mr Bonasia reminded the jury of his client’s evidence from the previous day that he had taken “multiple punches to the head” from Mr Connolly and was being backed into a fence.

“I was overcome with fear, almost frozen. I pulled out the knife, trying to make him stop the attack. I just swung at him, I think my eyes were closed, I wasn’t aiming at anything … I thought I was going to die,” Mr Bonasia said, quoting his client’s explanation.

Mr Bonasia said the jury must be satisfied that his client had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Connolly – it was not enough for them to simply conclude that the juvenile had the intention to possess a knife in a public place or stab someone.

“[My client] didn’t exaggerate, he didn’t embellish, he was consistent, he made concessions when he needed to, and those are the markers of an honest and reliable witness,” Mr Bonasia told the jury in reference to the juvenile’s testimony.

“His evidence is evidence you can accept, would accept, and find him not guilty of murder and manslaughter – at the very least his evidence would place you in reasonable doubt.”

Crown prosecutor Michael Gawrych started his closing remarks with 10 powerful words, allegedly used by the accused towards Mr Connolly and picked up in the CCTV audio.

“I’ll f---you up you c--t, don’t f--- with me.”

Mr Gawrych told the jury the evidence was that Mr Connolly repeatedly denied having the chain in question and was trying to walk away from the situation, whereas the accused was the one being confrontational and wouldn’t leave Mr Connolly be.

The defendant claims he got the knife from a friend some time prior to the incident and only had it for protection purposes as he and his girlfriend were homeless at the time.

“Consider what rational and possible reason is there for a 17-year-old to carry such a weapon around in public?” Mr Gawrych told the jury.

“[The accused’s version of events] is clearly designed by him to retrospectively justify why he killed an unarmed man … his version is illogical and not supported by the evidence … he was trying to set up to you ladies and gentlemen why he felt he needed to use that knife.”

The jury retired to begin deliberations on a possible verdict around 3pm on Wednesday.

Originally published as Jury urged to ignore political debate as they consider verdict in case of teen charged with murder