Closing submissions heard in Rober Karl Huber Ballina murder trial

Despite a lengthy murder trial drawing to a close on Friday over the alleged brutal bashing death of a woman in a Ballina laneway, the Crown and defence were still at odds on a number of glaring issues.

Robert Karl Huber stands accused of the murder of Lindy Lucena.

Despite a lengthy murder trial drawing to a close on Friday over the alleged brutal bashing death of a woman in a Ballina laneway, the Crown and defence were still at odds on a number of glaring issues.

The core dispute honed in on whether a deliberate, unrelenting assault was delivered on Lindy Lucena before she died on January 3, 2023 – or if pre-existing health conditions and other factors caused her death.

Throughout the trial, the Crown depicted a “volatile relationship” between murder accused Robert Karl Huber and Lucena for the duration of their relationship, marked by Huber’s temper – including a death threat in 2019 and an admitted assault in December 2022.

The relationship ended angrily on December 8, 2022 and by January 3 in the new year on the day of Lucena’s death, Huber was reportedly angry, blaming her after the pair had become homeless.

Throughout the trial, experts have disputed the exact cause of death of Lindy Lucena who died in January 2023 in a laneway behind the Ballina Salvation Army store.

A witness in the trial reported “a man bashing the hell out of his woman,” hearing Lucena repeatedly say “stop”.

Minutes later, she was seen motionless, face down, the trial heard.

The Crown argued Lucena was dead or near death by 9:30pm.

Robert Huber, left with lover, Lindy Lucena (deceased).

Further, the Crown said Huber changed out of bloodstained clothes containing Lucena’s DNA, and his denial to police was “obviously untrue”.

Forensic evidence showed Lucena suffered a “sustained assault with numerous blows to her head and face”, a neck injury, and arm injuries.

The Crown asserted her “craniofacial trauma was a substantial cause of death”, arguing she would not have died otherwise.

Given the assault’s nature and the couple’s history, the Crown said Huber intended to cause grievous bodily harm or to kill Lucena.

Lindy Lucena (deceased) and Robert Karl Huber 2020.

Defence barrister Jason Watts focused on conflicting medical opinions, challenging the cause of death and witness reliability.

During his day and a half closing submissions he argued the prosecution failed to prove craniofacial trauma was the substantial cause of death.

The defence expert, Professor Duflou, stated Lucena “could have died without the craniofacial injuries playing any role”.

He concluded that “no conclusive cause of death could be determined”.

Professor Duflou noted the deceased’s brain injuries were “not severe enough to be fatal” and lacked fractures, suggesting less force than previously argued by the Crown.

Alternative mechanisms included “positional asphyxia”, especially if she fell onto an object obstructing her nose and mouth, potentially with a soiled airway.

Factors like wooziness, methadone depression, or Valium could have impaired her ability to lift her head, Watts said.

The deceased had benzodiazepines and methadone in her system; chronic use or their combination could contribute to respiratory depression.

Watts also highlighted the deceased’s pre-existing cardiac issues, including arrhythmia and coronary artery disease.

Experts agreed physical or mental stress could heighten the risk of sudden cardiac death.

Watts suggested methadone toxicity, even at low levels, combined with moderate heart disease, could have caused respiratory depression or cardiac arrhythmia.

The defence also challenged the Crown’s expert, Dr. Cala, who initially attributed Lucena’s death solely to craniofacial trauma.

Dr Cala later conceded the observed brain bleeding would not be fatal and other mechanisms were likely.

Watts argued these “significant concessions” undermined his initial “adamant” conclusions.

Regarding Huber’s actions, Watts argued his aggressive response and uttering “She’s dead” were consistent with “shock and dawning realisation”, not a rehearsed act.

His swift move towards the police station was presented as seeking assistance.

Limited blood evidence also supported the defence’s narrative.

Justice Stephen Rothman has reserved his judgment until a later date.

Originally published as Closing submissions heard in Rober Karl Huber Ballina murder trial