Two family parties – the Doran’s and the Hadley’s – ended in tatters when an alleged confrontation over missing bikes escalated and spilled onto the street.

According to evidence tendered to the court, a group of up to 10 people were involved in the altercation, with punches thrown, threats yelled, a windscreen smashed and faces disfigured.

Friday’s decision in the case of four youths charged over the brawl followed 10 months of court proceedings.

It was a complex case, with up to 40 witnesses called to give evidence in hearings that ran over 16 days.

Magistrate Doug Dick delivered a 72-page judgement in Moruya Local Court last week, in which he found the youths had turned “defence into attack”.

However, he also had concerns about other parties.

In convicting the four youths – Chrystian Brunton, Bailie Doran, Rheece Doran and Jordan Weeks – Mr Dick said their actions went beyond self-defence, amounting to a form of “retribution consistent with exacting revenge”.

“There were countless opportunities for (the youths) to desist,” Mr Dick said.

“They could have discontinued long before they did.”

He did, however, recognise the prosecution’s concession that, at times, the youths acted under an extended definition of self-defence.

Mr Dick said the group voiced threats and continued to pursue a group of fathers as they retreated down the street.

At times, he said Bailie Doran was seen to be armed with a speargun, while Brunton admitted to using the broken handle of the speargun, which looked like a pistol in the dark.

In early interviews with police, the group was open about their involvement in the fracas, but justified their actions on the grounds of self-defence.

Mr Dick said Chrystian was “undeniably involved in retribution that night”, citing his admissions in a recorded interview: “We gave him a few punches and dragged him out the front to our gate … I gave him one and f***ing kicked him in the guts … I was pissed off and seeing red … I kicked him, I punched him, I would have given him a good four at least, four punches to the top of the head … I was just stressing and wanted to get my aggression out”.

Chrystian said in evidence he had seen two people he regarded as parental figures hurt and he was upset.

Rheece Doran also made admissions to his involvement in an interview. He said, “this big f***ing tall gorilla looking c**t come running in f***ing raging …  All of us rushed him and bashed the f*** out of him. He got beaten to the s***house … I was on adrenaline, I wanted to kill him”.

Despite Weeks denying any significant involvement, Mr Dick found he was an active participant.

“He admitted to being involved in a physical confrontation with (Murray Hadley) only,” Mr Dick said.

Murray Hadley has pleaded not guilty to two counts of common assault, one count of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of destroying or damaging property and his case remains before the courts.

However, DNA results found blood on Weeks’ trousers to be from one of the other fathers in the altercation.

He found that Weeks did not remain inside the house on Clarke Street as he had claimed.

Mr Dick raised questions about the actions of the man, Murray Hadley, who the accused allege sparked the confrontation in Clarke Street after allegedly barging into the Doran home.

“It is clear that Murray had taken it upon himself to attend the Doran home with the intention of retrieving the bicycles. He left the gathering at his home unaccompanied and without making his intentions widely known,” Mr Dick said.

“The court marvels at what Murray thought he could achieve. How did he think he could recover the missing bicycles? He had left his house on his own, riding a bicycle.”

Mr Dick said it was even asked of the court if Hadley was “out of his mind”.

A teenage girl and boy, who were guests at the Doran party, alleged they were assaulted when Hadley entered the home without warning just before the midnight countdown.

“(He) was right in our faces, picked us up by the throat, inside the house. He was just screaming, ‘where the f*** are my kids’ bikes?’ and he kept saying it while he was holding us up with a hand around our throats, applying pressure, squeezing and lifting us up off the ground. All the boys charged him out of the house,” the teenage girl told the court.

The teenage boy alleges he was also thrown up against the wall with a hand around his throat.

The pair said they watched as a fight erupted between Hadley and the four youths.

It was at this point the group of fathers from the Hadley party arrived at Clarke Street.

In giving evidence, Hadley’s son told the court group decided to drive round to the Doran home in a ute to look for Hadley after he was discovered to be missing from the party.

Off-duty police officer, Steve Heffernan, said the group had to urgently leave to check on Hadley, as there were serious concerns for his welfare.

Throughout the hearings, the defence likened the fathers to a “vigilante group”, a claim Mr Dick dismissed.

“There was insufficient evidence to find that the group of fathers united to punish,” he said.

However, he did acknowledge that the sudden appearance of the “large and well-built” men in Clarke Street may have been “unsettling” or even “threatening” to the youths.

“Three men alighted from the ute, they fanned out and either ran or walked towards the group of youths. They proceeded past the escaping Murray and advanced on the group of youths. The group of fathers were large men silhouetted against the headlights,” he said.

One of the fathers conceded this daunting impression was justified.

“What we did may have looked like we were going there as a lynch mob with a mission to seek revenge. The two groups may have completely missed each other group’s motives. When we got out of the car, we were in attack mode to protect,” the father said.

There were many accounts of the altercation that night. During hearings, the arrival of the ute containing the group of fathers was positioned as a turning point in the melee.

Driving the ute was the teenage daughter of one of the fathers, who told the court she saw Hadley “staggering around aimlessly” when they arrived in Clarke Street.

Two other fathers said Hadley looked as though he was being pursued by the youths and was “dazed and scared”.

Hadley’s son described the bloody scene.

“I saw Dad covered in blood in the middle of the street,” the son said.

“Dad was completely covered in blood, no shirt on, limping, stumbling, and not walking normally”.

Off duty police officer Steve Heffernan said the brawl turned particularly ugly when some of the youths threatened to kill them and pulled out a wooden stock spear gun. He said the spear gun was used to hit him across the face and head. 

As the group of fathers started retreating, another said he saw the handle of the spear struck over the head of one man and in the stomach of another. He said the group continued to pursue them, yelling, “We’re going to kill you. We’re going to kill your wife and family”. 

All charges relating to the alleged possession of weapons were dismissed.

Multiple witnesses said the fight continued beyond Clarke Street towards the Hadley home, where Mr Dick said some of the youths continued to threaten to kill the older men.

Scores of triple zero calls from witnesses alerted police to the violence. Arriving at the Hadley home, police found Hadley and Heffernan blooded, disfigured and nursing facial injuries.

Both would be taken to hospital for treatment.

Officers also spoke to the youths, who claimed the violence was the result of a “home invasion”.

A key defence contention was the police’s perceived disregard for the youth’s version of events, claiming it was slanted in favour of the older men from the outset.

Mr Dick, however, did not find that the police “selectively gathered information” in the early stages of their investigation. “I can accept the information replied upon was slanted in favour of the group of fathers, but that was the version police had gleaned,” Mr Dick said.

“These decisions are made when investigations are in their infancy. Police were proceeding on a common but erroneous assumption regarding the true events of that night.”

He also did not support another defence contention, that the police’s decision to execute a crime scene warrant at the Clarke Street home early the next morning and arrest the youths were unjustified. He found the warrant and arrests were justified and lawful.

“The application for a crime scene warrant may not sit comfortably with some ... it was made at a time when police believed they had a decent understanding of what had unfolded that night,” he said.

However, Mr Dick did express concern about several elements of the investigation. The defence had concerns about the gathering of statements, particularly that of Mr Heffernan. During the hearings, Mr Heffernan agreed his emailed statement had been extended to show the Hadleys in “glowing terms”.

Further issues were raised over what was found to be an unorthodox identification process on an officer’s mobile phone. The defence additionally focused on a barbecue held at the Heffernan home in the days after the incident, which was argued to have given the fathers a chance to “collude”.

Mr Dick noted this important evidence was not disclosed to either prosecution and the defence in time. The most significant of these concerns was directed at the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which withdrew a strictly indictable charge against Hadley, without the usual consultation with police.

“I am scratching my head a bit over this one,” an investigating detective said in an email to the DPP which was tendered to the court.

“Have we discussed this? Enter with intent to intimidate? Does that offence adequately address the seriousness of what happened?” 

Mr Dick found that the DDP’s justification for refusing to reveal why this was done was “ludicrous”. 

A key aspect of the defence case centered on what was argued to be a blatant conflict of interests among local police and the off-duty officer involved. 

The hearings revealed, however, that these concerns were flagged by detectives during the investigation.

Mr Dick, while finding a conflict of interests, did not believe it hindered police process.

“I accept there was a conflict of interests. I do not accept that the conflict of interests compromised the investigation. Having a conflict of interest is sometimes unavoidable,” he said.

“The court is not satisfied that his handling of the investigation demonstrated a lack of integrity, objectivity or impartiality.”

The defence also argued there was a local police culture with “a high degree of protection of each other and protection of other favoured persons within the local community”.

Although Mr Dick said he drew attention to several “troublesome decisions, actions and events” during the course of the investigation, it was not up to the court to suggest further action in this instance.