WAS he part of an "evil plan" to ambush and execute a 61-year-old grandmother as she answered the front door to her Stockton home?
Or was he a "patsy" who was simply repaying a favour when he became an unwitting participant in the premeditated murder of Stacey Klimovitch?
A jury will on Tuesday morning begin determining the fate of Stephen John Garland, accused of murder over the death of Ms Klimovitch, who was shot dead by a hitman in Stockton on June 9, 2021.
And before they reach their verdict, the central issue for the jury to decide is whether Mr Garland knew about the plot to murder Ms Klimovitch before he drove the gunman to Stockton and whether he was party to a joint criminal enterprise with two other men to execute the plan.
Mr Garland, now 65, has pleaded not guilty to murder and being an accessory after the fact to murder over the death of Mrs Klimovitch, who was shot once in the chest with a shotgun after she answered her front door in Queen Street about 8pm on June 9, 2021 in what prosecutors allege was a "targeted" and "premeditated" shooting.
Mr Garland claims he was "duped" into unknowingly participating in the 61-year-old's murder and told police he was "coaxed" into driving the gunman to and from Stockton on the night of the shooting by the mastermind, Stuart Campbell, who repeatedly asked him to repay a favour and drive his "mate" to Stockton.
Crown prosecutor Brett Hatfield, SC, has told the jury the murder stemmed from ongoing animosity between Mrs Klimovitch and Mr Campbell, the ex-partner of Mrs Klimovitch's daughter.
He said Mr Campbell had the motive and arranged the murder, recruiting the gunman to pull the trigger and Mr Garland to drive him to and from Stockton.
He said the three men were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise to murder Mrs Klimovitch and, while he didn't pull the trigger, Mr Garland knew his role was the driver.
Mr Campbell was charged with murder but died before facing trial.
During his closing address, Mr Hatfield told the jury Mr Garland's version was "implausible" and questioned how a "clearly premeditated" murder was left to chance that Mr Garland would play the role of driver until the night it happened.
"It is completely implausible that someone is going to be tricked into being the getaway driver for a shooting murder," Mr Hatfield said.
Mr Hatfield questioned Mr Garland's claims during his police interviews that he did not ask his passenger why he was going to Stockton and said an explanation was there was no need to ask because he already knew the plan.
During his closing address, defence barrister Tom Hughes asked the jury if it was really plausible Mr Garland would involve himself in a murder, using his own car and departing from his own house in the presence of multiple witnesses to assist a man who he had only known for five months.
"And to commit a violent, premeditated murder of someone he had no involvement with, never heard of, had no interest in and no dispute with?" Mr Hughes asked. "Why would he have done such a thing?"
He submitted it was "frankly ridiculous" that he entered into an agreement with the other two men and said an alternative hypothesis that he was purposefully kept in the dark made more sense.
