Prosecutors have alleged that a Canberra man who stabbed his two younger brothers, puncturing one's lung, waited to see whether his family would give evidence at his trial before pleading guilty.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Taniela Pikula, 27, was heavily intoxicated and said he could not remember stabbing his two brothers, then aged 14 and 15, in May 2014.
He stabbed one in the thigh as the brother tried to break up a fight, requiring the victim to go to hospital and receive five stitches.
The other stabbing was more serious, puncturing the victim's lung and requiring urgent medical attention.
The teenage victim would probably have died without treatment, the ACT Supreme Court heard on Tuesday.
Pikula was charged with causing grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but pleaded not guilty and was set to fight the allegations at trial.
On the first day of his trial, five of the six witnesses, all relatives or linked to the family in some way, failed to show up to give evidence.
One of his brothers was arrested and brought before court the next day, but was highly emotional and obviously conflicted over having to give evidence against Pikula.
Pikula then pleaded guilty to the two offences, and is now facing sentencing before Justice Richard Refshauge.
His lawyers have now asked the court to give Pikula a discount for the guilty pleas, because they facilitated the course of justice.
The defence argued that someone in the offender's position was justified to take the case to trial, given his lack of memory, and the absence of any statement from the main victim.
"He was more entitled than someone who was more cognisant of what went on, to find out what went on," his lawyer said.
But the Crown alleged that the events at the trial suggested Pikula was waiting to see who turned up to give evidence before deciding whether to enter pleas.
Justice Refshauge said it was "difficult to believe" Pikula could not have found out from his family what had happened, had he truly wanted to facilitate the course of justice.
The court heard Pikula had come from a disadvantaged and dysfunctional background. His father left the family early, and his mother battled alcoholism while trying to raise a large number of children.
Pikula himself began drinking at the age of 12, and his consumption became problematic by the age of 15.
His alcohol problems were linked to his offending history, the court heard.
He has completed prison-based employment and rehabilitation programs while in custody.
Justice Refshauge noted Pikula appeared on the "cusp of rehabilitation" and said he was considering a longer parole period to help the offender build on his progress in the community.
Pikula will be sentenced on Thursday.