Charges against an accused puppy killer have been dismissed with a magistrate saying he was "unsure where the truth lies" after rejecting both the defendant's and complainant's evidence.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Stephen George Button, in his 50s, faced the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday after pleading not guilty to aggravated animal cruelty and other charges.
The prosecution case is that in April 2020, the complainant woke up from what she described as "an animal screeching" in Spence.
She went downstairs then screamed when she saw Mr Button at the back door, allegedly holding a knife down the throat of the three-month-old French bulldog named Max.
Mr 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 complainant gave evidence during a contested hearing earlier this year that "there was blood basically pouring out of it".
"The dog was basically drowning. It was gurgling ... its eyes just went dead, basically," she alleged.
Mr Button told the court that Max, with two other dogs, had escaped the premises' backyard before the bulldog was hit by a vehicle.
Magistrate Robert Cook in the latest court session said he found the complainant during her evidence "to be argumentative".
"The complainant's exchange, particularly in cross examination, were at times not logical nor persuasive and at times I had difficulty in accepting them as truthful," Mr Cook said.
"I'm not able to conclude to the standard required - that is beyond a reasonable doubt - that the aggravated cruelty to animal is established."
Mr Cook dismissed all charges, including property damage and common assault.
"I'm not sure where the truth lies in relation to this matter ... although I do not accept the version of events put forward by the defendant," he said.
"I found it to be illogical ... it was responses simply to questions with no substance."
In his closing submissions during the contested hearing in June, prosecutor James 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.
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 questions and had to be reminded repeatedly to answer them.
He also cited the discrepancies in her 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."
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:
- Bookmark canberratimes.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram
