A jury has been told sympathy has "no role to play" as it considers a verdict in the trial of a New South Wales Corrective Services officer charged with murdering an Indigenous man.
WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains the image of a person who has died.
Officer A is standing trial in Sydney's Supreme Court for the alleged murder of 43-year-old Dwayne Johnstone outside Lismore Base Hospital on the evening of March 15, 2019.
The trial ran for 15 days and heard evidence from a range of witnesses, including a Corrective Services officer working with Officer A on the night of the shooting, police, hospital staff, a ballistics expert and CCTV camera experts.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones told the jurors they must act "impartially" and "dispassionately".
"Clearly this is a very important case," he said.
"It's important not only to the accused, but to the whole community."
Justice Beech-Jones said any sympathy jury members felt for either the accused or the deceased would be "entirely understandable" but also "entirely irrelevant".
He said the jury should judge the matter based on evidence presented to them.
"Sympathy has no role to play in this case," Justice Beech-Jones said.
Dispute over fatal shot
The court previously heard Mr Johnstone was handcuffed and shackled as he ran from officers out the front of the hospital in a bid to escape custody.
Throughout the trial, the jury was shown CCTV footage of the 11 seconds during which Mr Johnstone made his escape attempt and Officer A fired his weapon.
It was not disputed that Officer A fired three shots, the last of which hit Mr Johnstone, who died in hospital a short time later.
But the timing and precise location of the final shot was disputed.
The Crown prosecutors argued the final shot came from the officer when he was closer to Mr Johnstone.
Lawyers for the Crown said Officer A could have contained and isolated Mr Johnstone on a medical centre ramp instead of shooting him.
"A firearm is the most lethal weapon in the Corrective Services armoury because it has the potential to kill," Crown prosecutor Ken McKay told the court last week.
"You would have no reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict really serious bodily harm on the deceased."
Verdict looms
Defence barrister Philip Strickland SC argued the fatal shot was taken earlier, when the officer was further away and could not clearly see an opportunity to contain Mr Johnstone.
Mr Strickland previously told the court correctional officers could discharge a firearm if they believed it was necessary to prevent the escape of an inmate.
"You may agree with this law or you may disagree with it," he said.
"You may think it gives officers too much power — but I urge you if you do think that, then disregard it.
"It doesn't matter if you like the law or you don't like the law."
Following the closing statements, the jury was tasked with deciding whether Officer A intended to inflict grievous bodily harm or had a reckless indifference to Mr Johnstone's life, and whether Officer A believed he had reasonable grounds to fire his gun to prevent Mr Johnstone from escaping.
The jury must now reach a unanimous decision on whether Officer A is guilty of murder, not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.
