Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Ross Albert Merrick used cocaine in the hours before he sat in a Greenhills tavern "looking for a fight", on a day that ended with him hitting his partner Marika Ninness leading to her death.
But a Newcastle Supreme Court jury at his murder trial was not told about the cocaine use on December 7, 2013, or Merrick allegedly slashing the tyres of Ms Ninness' teenage son's bike, or a threatening text message to Ms Ninness' employer, or some evidence of death threats to Ms Ninness' former husband.
All were ruled likely to prejudice a jury against him, in a trial that ended on Tuesday with a manslaughter conviction.
Justice Helen Wilson ruled a jury "may misuse the evidence" if told Merrick used cocaine on the day he hit Ms Ninness, in one of four decisions made during Merrick's trial which were only made public on Thursday.
The Newcastle Herald can now report that Merrick sought to exclude from the trial all evidence of his relationship with Ms Ninness before the day he hit her, including text messages in which he described her to another woman as "that pathetic houso c… rag", and evidence of serious violence by him against her.
Because Merrick did not dispute physical contact with Ms Ninness outside Georges Tavern at Greenhills on December 7, 2013, any evidence before that day was "irrelevant and inadmissible", his barrister Tania Evers argued during a two-day hearing at the start of the trial, and in the absence of the jury.
But Justice Wilson ruled it would be "quite wrong and completely artificial" to ask the jury to decide Merrick's case in "a complete vacuum", without knowing about their relationship in the months before Ms Ninness' death.
"The jury could be left with an unrealistic and misleading picture of the relationship between the accused and the deceased," Justice Wilson said.
"It would also give no context to what appears to be his case at trial… that he did no more than wave the deceased away, the gesture being an instinctive movement induced or influenced by his former service in the Armed Forces, one which was without any intention to harm or kill, and without any force".
Merrick's concession that physical contact occurred "falls far short of an admission of having murdered Ms Ninness, or even to unlawfully killing her", Justice Wilson said.
"Ms Evers characterised her client's acknowledged act as similar to what might be done to wave away an insect annoyingly buzzing about one's face; such an act does not import any force, or any intent to kill or harm. It is unlikely to be an act that could be regarded as dangerous."
Merrick argued against "relationship evidence" by people including Ms Ninness' friends, sister, employer, son and former husband .
They told the court of Ms Ninness' allegations she had been "ragdolled" and "knocked out cold" by Merrick in one incident at home in October, 2013; how he was controlling and monitored her movements; how she feared if she left him he would "come after me or someone I love", and how she had bruises on her neck and arms from violent incidents.
Text messages between the two from May to December 2013 – some not shown to the jury – appeared to show "a volatile and abusive relationship between the accused and deceased, which the deceased tried repeatedly to end, although later reconciling with the accused", Justice Wilson said.
Evidence of a hostile or violent relationship was generally admissible to show "the atmosphere in which the charged event occurred, an atmosphere which could render it less likely that the charged offence occurred in the way the accused person asserted it had".
In other decisions only made public on Thursday Justice Wilson declined Merrick's application on February 29 to defer the trial and hold it in Sydney because a Newcastle jury might have been "infected with bias against him" because of comments on a Facebook site.
Justice Wilson also rejected Ms Evers' application on the 13th day of the trial on March 16 that the judge disqualify herself because of alleged bias.
While Ms Evers was "quite correct" to say the court was critical of her, the criticism related to delays, Justice Wilson said.
"It is to be regretted if counsel is not in a position to proceed. It is to be regretted if a jury is delayed. It is to be regretted if a criminal trial of a very serious matter is delayed. In that lies the source of the criticism directed to counsel," Justice Wilson said.
"I do not regard robust comments from the Court to counsel because of delay to be any indication of actual bias. What it demonstrates is the dissatisfaction of the Court when counsel is not in a position to proceed."
Merrick was refused bail on Tuesday and is due to appear in the Supreme Court in Newcastle for sentencing in May.