A former policeman accused of attacking his ex-wife with a makeshift Taser and throttling her with an electrical cord has provided a plausible explanation for the incident, his lawyer says.
Mark Leslie Anderson is on trial in the ACT Supreme Court for threatening to kill another person, burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and breaching a protection order.
Anderson was accused of assaulting his former wife, Catherine Green, with a weapon, similar to a Taser, which he had constructed using an electrical cord and metal at a home in Farrer in June 2010.
When the device failed to deliver a shock, he allegedly used the cord to choke Ms Green and his hand to try to suffocate her.
But Anderson, who spent two days in the witness box last week, said he had gone to Ms Green's house after she asked him to fix wiring in a disused bathroom.
The court heard the accused man had initially refused because he did not want to breach the court order. But he agreed because he believed Ms Green would be at work and was worried the wires would endanger his children.
Anderson said Ms Green arrived home while he was working and made him a cup of tea before attacking him.
Both legal teams presented closing submissions in the judge-only trial, before Chief Justice Terence Higgins, on Tuesday.
The Crown said the case was a credit issue and the trial would hinge on Chief Justice Higgins accepting or rejecting the contradicting evidence provided by Ms Green and Anderson.
Defence barrister Bernard Collaery said the accused man had provided a plausible explanation for the events of that day.
The defence argued that the Crown's case was improbable as it relied on the evidence of Ms Green.
''There was a disconnect in the complainant's evidence in key events,'' Mr Collaery said.
Mr Collaery detailed a number of ''inconsistent'' and ''problematic'' parts of the alleged victim's evidence, including a lack of blood on the cord Anderson is accused of using to choke Ms Green.
''Your Honour can't be sure of just about anything in this case,'' Mr Collaery said.
''If you aggregate the evidence of the complainant, you should find … that the balance has to fall on the accused's side.
''On the burden of proof required, we can't make conclusions. The law doesn't allow a conclusion … in an offence so grave as these.''
Chief Justice Terence Higgins has reserved his judgement on the matter.