A MAN on trial over an alleged glassing incident at Dareton in 2022 has been found not guilty.
Richard Bugmy was on trial for the Broken Hill District for one count of recklessly wounding, where the jury ruled he was not guilty of the charge on Tuesday afternoon following a three day hearing.
It was alleged by the Crown prosecutor that Mr Bugmy had attacked Jason Smith on November 8, 2022, following a heavy night of drinking by both men.
In his final address, the Crown mentioned expert witness Dr Amal Fernando, the surgeon who oversaw Mr Smith’s surgery following the incident, and witness Janis Reid, a neighbour who was on-the-scene and called 000.
The Crown referenced Dr Fernando’s comments that “it is hard for me to believe the lacerations on the head and shoulder are the result of a fall”, concluding this as further evidence Mr Smith’s injuries were not the result of a fall but being glassed by Mr Bugmy.
Ms Reid’s statements were also referred to by the Crown.
“Janis Reid said she saw the accused, no shirt, run towards the complainant Mr Smith,” the Crown said in his final address.
“She said ‘Jimmy J (Mr Smith) was laying on the ground and Diccy (Mr Bugmy) was about to boot him’.”
Mr Bugmy defence council Jessie Sinclair put three hypothetical questions to the jury in his final address, calling on the members to decide if they believed the Crown’s story beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first referred to a statement from Ms Reid saying that Mr Bugmy approached her worried about Mr Smith’s condition on the night, and if the jury thought he would have done this if he had committed the crime.
“Ms Reid thought Mr Bugmy was coming over because he was worried about Mr Smith, this is not the behaviour of someone who had just undertaken a violent attack,” Mr Sinclair said.
“I suggest the whole bottle story came from the patient.
“It’s wrong, he can’t get his story straight.”
The second question referred to a lack of scratches on Mr Bugmy’s hands on the night and the realistic possibility of them occurring following an allegedly violent altercation.
The final hypothetical resulted from further questioning of the Police officer in charge of the investigation Acting Inspector Matt Sippel while on the witness stand, which confirmed Mr Bugmy took the most public and well-lit way home following the altercation.
“If he did commit this crime, why didn’t he go the other way home on the backroads which takes the same amount of time, as confirmed by Mr Sippel, and walk very calmly home along the park and highway in the lights and very publicly, he was not running and was very relaxed,” Mr Sinclair said.
Before the verdict was delivered, Judge Peter McGrath gave a summary of the two arguments, reminding the jury that suspicion does not amount to proof that is beyond reasonable doubt.
“Even if it is strong suspicion or ‘he probably did it’,” Judge McGrath said. “The Jury has to be careful in cases where the crown relies on one key witness.”
