Man faces ACT Supreme Court trial accused of destroying evidence from Weston Creek skatepark brawl

An ACT Supreme Court trial beginning on Monday heard that after the skatepark fight between two groups in September that year, when one man died, three teenage boys from the opposing group went to the accused's premises where they spoke about the incident.

The accused, 18 at the time of the incident, pleaded not guilty to a charge of destroying or concealing evidence intending to influence a decision about starting a legal proceeding.

One of the three boys had since admitted seriously wounding a 16-year-old boy from the other side by knifing him in the back, the court heard.

"They [the trio] started to spill the beans about what happened," prosecutor Trent Hickey said in his opening statement.

"What happened later at the house is why we're all here."

The prosecutor said once the group realised the stabber had the hat of the teenager he knifed, the accused said words to the effect of "shit, what are you stupid?" before grabbing the hat and placing it in a plastic bag.

A few days later, the accused used petrol to light the bag with the hat and threw it in a fire in his backyard, the court heard.

During the police investigation, they executed a search warrant at the accused's house where he downplayed what he knew, Mr Hickey alleged.

He said the accused, who is not named for legal reasons, again did not tell police the full picture during a formal interview a few days later.

After the accused told his uncle he burnt the hat, police executed another search warrant at his premises where they eventually said they had been tipped off about evidence being destroyed.

"He feigned that he had no idea why people would say that," Mr Hickey said.

"Police pressed him a bit further before the accused blurts out something like 'OK, I f---ing did it, I burnt the hat'."

MORE COURT NEWS

The prosecutor said the accused's reasons for burning the hat included "not getting caught" and that he was "trying to be loyal to a mate".

Mr Hickey said their case is that after burning the hat, the accused lied to police and "deliberately omitted mentioning anything about the hat because he was conscious of his guilt about it".

"He told police he'd be an accessory after the fact if he had the hat," he said.

Mr Hickey said the hat would have been physical evidence linking the stabber with the skatepark incident.

Defence barrister Travis Jackson said much of what the prosecution put to the jury was agreed between the parties and the hat "could have" been evidence.

He said his client intentionally set the hat on fire but reminded the jury about the intention, particularly since the accused "was barely 18 years old" and found himself in a situation created by others.

Mr Jackson told the jury to question if other hypotheses "consistent with innocence" existed, including whether the accused "just wanted it out of his house".

"That is something very plausible in this case," he said.

Mr Jackson said another important factor was the accused not being involved in the skatepark incident.

The stabber was one of the witnesses to give evidence on Monday.

He was taken to previous court proceedings in which he said the accused told him "give it here, I'll get rid of it".

The witness now says he cannot remember having that conversation with the accused.

During cross-examination, he agreed the accused was not part of the skatepark incident and did not participate in using social media to organise the fight.

Other evidence in the trial includes police recordings of their search warrant executions.

The jury trial before Chief Justice Lucy McCallum continues.

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: