A woman's knife injury was a "very unfortunate, but serious accident" rather than an attempt by her husband to murder her, a defence barrister has argued.
Prosecutor Sam McLaughlin and defence barrister Jack Pappas made their closing submissions on Wednesday, June 24, in the ACT Supreme Court jury trial.
The man, who has not been named to protect the identity of the alleged victim, had pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and property damage, as well as alternative charges that include making a threat to kill and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The court previously heard the couple, who were together for 24 years and share two children, had been experiencing relationship difficulties in the months leading up to the alleged murder attempt on July 5, 2024.
In his closing address to the jury, Mr McLaughlin argued the "heavily intoxicated" husband reached a "breaking point" during an argument at the couple's Gungahlin home just before 11pm.
He allegedly whispered, "I'm going to kill you" into his now-ex-wife's ear before repeatedly assaulting her, on some occasions in front of their daughter, who called triple zero.
The prosecutor alleged the husband eventually grabbed a chef's knife from the kitchen and stabbed his wife in the forearm, which she had raised moments before.
"The knife penetrated through her arm, through her jumper, and left a small cut [on her] chest," he said.
The wife believed her husband wanted to keep stabbing her when he tried to pull the knife out of her arm, the jury heard.
In his closing address, Mr Pappas suggested the evidence pointed to the husband attempting to take his own life after realising his marriage was coming to an end, rather than intending to murder his wife.
He said the man was in a "drunken and emotionally shattered state" that night, and suggested the wife was accidentally impaled during a collision while her husband was "running around" with the knife.
Mr Pappas asked the jurors to consider why, if the man had deliberately tried to kill his wife, he did not "pull the knife back out and finish the job".
"You know that in addition to that knife, there were knives all over the house," he told the jury, adding that the man "didn't even try" to go near his wife with another knife after the collision.
Mr Pappas also said there were "red flags" in the alleged victim's evidence, arguing she had sometimes omitted or added details across her police interviews and during the trial.
One inconsistency in her evidence, he said, was when the woman claimed she put her thumbs into the man's eyes as he allegedly choked her on the ground, but then reduced the pressure because she did not want to hurt him.
"That, in my submission, is madness," he said.
"If you're fighting for your life, you're fighting for your life. You can't have it both ways."
Mr McLaughlin said the evidence presented in the trial did not support the argument that the injury was caused by an accident.
"She wasn't impaled, she was stabbed," he told the jury.
He argued that the husband "must have seen her ... well in advance of stabbing her", and it was only after the alleged murder attempt that the husband "had a moment of clarity" before he started talking about killing himself.
The prosecutor also argued there were no major inconsistencies in the alleged victim's evidence that would give the jury reason to reject her account, stating she was "ardent in her desire to make sure her evidence was entirely accurate".
"She was able to [give evidence] so efficiently and quickly because she was drawing from real memories," he said.
The jury will begin deliberating later this week in the trial before Justice Belinda Baker.
