A jury was warned on Wednesday that any opinions they held about Australia's refugee policies were irrelevant when it came to decide verdicts for seven protesters who superglued their hands to a balustrade in Parliament House.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Timothy Buchanan, Philip Evans, Hannah Grant, Samantha Hawker, Chamomilla Hill, Sally Hunter and Jason Ray have faced an ACT Supreme Court trial this week after each pleaded not guilty to a charge of intentionally damaging Commonwealth property.
The court has heard that at about 2pm on November 30, 2016 a larger group began a protest in the southern gallery in the House of Representatives and forced Question Time to a halt.
Security staff removed most of the protesters one by one, eventually bringing in hand sanitiser to dissolve the superglue under the remaining protesters' hands.
Federal prosecutors allege the seven superglued their hands to the leather balustrade with the intent of damaging the property.
But in closing arguments, the group's lawyer urged the jury to find the seven not guilty, and said they did not have the intent to damage the leather.
It was accepted by prosecutors that the seven had come to Parliament House that day to stage a protest.
"But intent to protest and intent to damage property are not mutually exclusive," federal prosecutor Jane Paingakulam said.
She said it was the Crown case that the seven had intended to glue their hands to the property, and they were "aware that [damage] would occur in the ordinary course of events".
She said the damage was not trivial.
The court has heard the cost of repairs was $1295 plus GST and that it took maintenance staff more than 18 hours to restore the leather.
Ms Paingakulam told the court the leather was refurbished every six months. She suggested the condition of the material was important, and signified a respect for Australia's democracy and its parliament.
The protesters' hands were "quite stuck" she said, and the leather moved as staff lifted the protesters hands.
She urged the jury to use their own knowledge of superglue and its effects to decide whether the group intended to damage the leather that day.
But defence lawyer Tim Sharman urged the jury to acquit the group, and said that the seven did not intend to do any damage.
He pointed to the evidence given in court by Mr Evans, who said the group had sought advice from a paramedic, who told them it would be safe to use nail polish remover with acetone, which could dissolve the glue without damaging property.
Mr Evans told the court the group - who came from Newcastle, Melbourne, Sydney and Wamboin - came to Canberra with the intention of disrupting parliament with a non-violent protest, but they did not intend to cause injury or to cause any damage.
The man said they had prepared a speech to be read out, and told the court they wanted to delay their removal from the building while the speech was read via a call and response.
Mr Sharman said the group had urged security staff to call for paramedics to help remove them, and they had suggested the staff use nail polish instead of the hand sanitiser gel eventually used to free the group.
At the end of the day, Chief Justice Helen Murrell gave the jury directions on the law before they were to start deliberating.
She also warned the jury again that the case was not concerned with the plight of refugees or the right to protest.
The jury will return Thursday to begin its deliberations.
