AGGRESSIVE, agitated and increasingly desperate to see his ex-partner and their child, Daniel Pettersson's behaviour on the day he was stabbed to death at a home in Jesmond was so forceful that it was "almost inevitable" that his rival Kevin George Smith would be forced to defend himself, a jury has been told.
Mr Smith and Mr Pettersson had been in a relationship with the same woman at varying times and had been involved in a bitter dispute over paternity of a child before their rivalry came to a head during a volatile confrontation at a house in Michael Street on the afternoon of January 6 last year.
There is no dispute Mr Smith was armed with a knife and stabbed Mr Pettersson in the chest during a wrestle in the kitchen of the home between 3.34pm and 3.39pm.
On the day he died, Mr Pettersson had been trying to contact the woman, including making 17 calls to her phone and seven calls to her father.
During his closing address on Thursday, Public Defender Peter Krisenthal said those calls showed Mr Pettersson had an "increasing sense of desperation" to be with his ex-partner and child.
Dash cam footage from a vehicle in Michael Street showed Mr Pettersson had pulled up outside the house for a short time about 15 minutes before the confrontation, which Mr Krisenthal described as "stalking or spying behaviour".
He soon drove away and phone records show Mr Pettersson immediately made a call to his friend and flatmate, Wade McKinnon.
Mr Pettersson picked up Mr McKinnon, asked for a lighter to hold in his hand in case he punched something and returned to the house where he yelled out for the woman to let him see his child.
The woman told him to leave and as Mr Pettersson stood on the front step with the woman blocking his path, Mr Smith appeared inside brandishing a knife.
During his closing address, Crown prosecutor Brendan Queenan had said Mr Smith was the aggressor, was not acting in self-defence and had stabbed Mr Pettersson with the intention to kill or cause him really serious injury.
But Mr Krisenthal began his closing address by asking the jury if the evidence in the trial really supported such a conclusion.
"It wasn't Kevin Smith that was going into another person's house on January 6," Mr Krisenthal said. "It wasn't Kevin Smith who was banging on the house saying "let me f---ing in". Kevin Smith was at his residence, minding his own business. He wasn't out and about creating scenes and wanting violence. Is it really plausible after all the evidence you've heard that he used the weapon to assault Daniel Pettersson out of frustration or anger when he had already declined the invitation to go out and fight. Or based on the evidence do your thoughts immediately go to Daniel Pettersson as being the person whose anger and frustration led him to be the one that attended Michael Street with the intention of assaulting the accused? You might think that the behaviour of Daniel Pettersson on that day was so aggressive and so forceful that to some extent it was almost inevitable that Kevin Smith would have to act and defend himself as he did."
Mr Krisenthal said the prosecution could not disprove that Mr Smith believed it was necessary to do what he did to defend himself and his actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
"He was placed in a situation by a much bigger man where you could infer that he feared for his life and he was left with no option than to defend himself," Mr Krisenthal said. "His actions were reasonable and the Crown has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defence."
The trial continues on Monday when Justice Sarah McNaughton will sum up the evidence.
