A Canberra futsal player who allegedly struck a man in the face with such force he broke his eye socket during a post-match scuffle was angry and looking for a fight that night, prosecutors say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But lawyers for Kerim Hidic, 22, argued the goalkeeper acted in self defence and to protect a friend when he struck the player from an opposing team amid the brawl at the Australian National University.
Mr Hidic was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and pleaded not guilty.
His ACT Supreme Court trial this week heard the high-stakes game between first grade teams Kolo FC and Big Ball turned violent amid simmering tensions between players and spectators in December 2015.
The referee eventually called the game off and the group fight erupted soon after after two players had a tense verbal exchange.
One of the players from the Big Ball team ran into the fracas to help a friend who he said was on the ground and getting kicked in the back of the head.
He grabbed the alleged attacker from behind before Mr Hidic struck him in the face with such force he fractured bones around his eye in two places, prosecutors say.
The injury caused the man's eye to sink backwards and down in his head. He had surgery to improve its appearance but suffered ongoing vision problems, the court heard.
Jurors in the trial retired to consider their verdict, after hearing more than two days of evidence, on Wednesday afternoon.
It was not disputed that the man suffered grievous bodily harm, or that Mr Hidic punched him.
The jury must decide whether the accused acted recklessly, and struck the alleged victim even though he knew it could injure him, and whether his actions were reasonable.
In her closing submissions, prosecutor Soraya Saikal-Skea said Mr Hidic had taken things much further than anyone else involved when he dealt the blow that stopped the brawl.
She said Mr Hidic was already angry and looking for a fight that night, and made a choice to run up to the man before he struck him.
Ms Saikal-Skea noted the man was hit in the face, as he stood on a hard surface, and with significant force. She argued a person could form a reckless state of mind in a matter of seconds.
"The punch was deliberate in every sense."
Defence barrister Jason Moffett, in arguing his client acted in self defence, said the match had become "tremendously scary" and out-of-control before it was called off and the melee broke out.
"Clearly, on the evidence, it was an all-in brawl," he said.
Mr Moffett noted the alleged victim had been on his way out of the building when he heard a commotion and had returned to the fight, saying he wanted to protect his brother who was inside.
"The complainant did not need to go back into the brawl."
He said Mr Hidic had similar motivations and had simply wanted to protect his friends.
The jury will return to court on Friday to continue deliberations. The trial is in front of Chief Justice Helen Murrell.
