ACT court closing arguments made in hearing of Stephen George Button accused of animal cruelty after puppy's death

Stephen George Button, 54, was called to give evidence in the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday after pleading not guilty to aggravated animal cruelty.

The prosecution case is that in early 2020, a sound like a dog screaming woke the complainant up in Spence.

She screamed when she saw Button at the back door, allegedly holding a knife down the throat of the three-month-old French bulldog named Max.

Button allegedly said words to the effect of "he is a nuisance of a dog and this is a lesson" and "this is the way we used to kill dogs in the bush".

The court on Wednesday heard that no objective evidence - the knife, blood, and the dog's body - could be presented.

The defendant said Max was hit and killed by a car after he and two other dogs wandered onto the streets.

Button later informed the complainant about the death.

During cross examination, prosecutor James Melloy suggested Button fabricated that version of events "to fit your defence today" and he killed Max by putting a knife down its throat.

Button denied those suggestions and said he had never engaged in hunting after being asked if he was familiar with it.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS

The complainant previously gave evidence via audio-visual link from a remote witness room, saying she woke up because "it sounded like an animal screeching".

"There was blood basically pouring out of it. The dog was basically drowning," she alleged.

"It was gurgling ... its eyes just went dead, basically."

In his closing submissions on Wednesday, Mr Melloy said credibility was ultimately the key issue in this word-on-word case.

He said the lack of objective evidence had an explanation: the complainant cleaned the blood and threw the knife out.

The prosecutor urged the court to find the complainant as being reliable and credible and reject the defendant's evidence.

"It [Button's evidence] was unimpressive ... he was not entirely forthcoming," Mr Melloy said.

"There were vagueness in some of his answers in cross examination."

Defence lawyer Sam McLaughlin said his client "did not paint himself in glory" because he acknowledged his alcohol and substance abuse at the time of the alleged offending.

"Mr Button gave evidence in what can only be characterised as straightforward and frank," Mr McLaughlin said.

The defence lawyer attacked the complainant's evidence, saying she made continual effort to avoid answering particular questions and had to be reminded repeatedly to answer them.

He also cited the discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, including whether she or the breeder had registered Max and how the dogs escaped.

"She was scared from the Max incident ... however, somewhat incredibly, she said she bought two further dogs after my client [allegedly] horrifically executed a dog partially in her presence," Mr McLaughlin said.

"Bearing in mind there's no complaint by Christmas 2020 - she tried to assert she did in fact complain.

"When close attention is paid to the transcript [of the complainant's evidence in court], it is littered with inconsistencies and assertions that are unbelievable."

Following the session, Button left the courts building with his mother.

The case before magistrate Robert Cook is scheduled to return on October 5.

We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: