An alleged murderer has concocted an "unbelievable" story about protecting his father, when he really stabbed a neighbour 11 times in order to prove to his dad that he was "not a little kid", a prosecutor says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But the accused's barrister insists the young man has not lied, describing his account as "the most logical" in the case.
The fate of Daniel James Sharpe, 20, rests with a jury in the NSW Supreme Court, where he is on trial over the April 2019 death of 29-year-old Andrew Drake in Surfside, just north of Batemans Bay.
He has pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder, arguing he acted to defend his father David Sharpe from an attack by a knife-wielding Mr Drake.
In closing the Crown case on Thursday, however, prosecutor Kate Ratcliffe said Mr Drake had never had a weapon and the jury should reject any such claim.
She said that on the evidence of Mr Drake's sister Penny, Daniel Sharpe had become "quite worked up" when his father "chastised" him for breaking a glass.
The Sharpes had invited the Drake siblings into their shed for drinks and the accused "seemed angry" about the way his father had spoken to him in front of their guests, according to Ms Drake.
Ms Ratcliffe said when Ms Drake and Daniel Sharpe went outside to talk about this, they heard raised voices coming from inside the shed and stepped back in to find Mr Drake and David Sharpe fighting.
Ms Drake was injured and "blacked out" as she tried to break up the tussle, but Ms Ratcliffe said she was adamant her brother did not have a knife.
David Sharpe, meanwhile, had been so drunk he now had "no clue" what had happened.
Ms Ratcliffe said the jury would therefore find Daniel Sharpe had been the only person armed with a weapon, and that after what had just occurred, "he desperately wanted to show his father that he was not a little kid".
"He wanted to show his father that he could fight [and] that he supported his father," she claimed.
The prosecutor told the jury this desire had led Daniel Sharpe, who was known to carry a knife, to intervene in what had been nothing more than a minor tussle and fatally "plunge" the weapon into Mr Drake 11 times.
She said the accused could not possibly have believed it was necessary to do what he did, and he could not explain why some of the stab wounds were to Mr Drake's back if he had only been acting defensively.
Ms Ratcliffe said Daniel Sharpe, at the time of the incident, was 18 years old, 159cm tall and "overweight", while Mr Drake was 29 years old, 171cm tall and "fit".
She reasoned that if Mr Drake had been in the midst of attacking David Sharpe, as the accused claimed, it seemed "inconceivable" the younger man had overpowered him.
Daniel Sharpe had only been able to kill Mr Drake, the prosecutor said, because the victim had never had the knife and had posed no threat.
Defence barrister Troy Anderson, however, told the jury his client had seen Mr Drake lift the knife in question "up high" and slash at David Sharpe.
This, according to Mr Anderson, led Daniel Sharpe to grab Mr Drake's arm and twist the knife into the 29-year-old's body.
He said the weapon had then fallen to the floor, from which Daniel Sharpe had retrieved it and continued to stab Mr Drake.
When Daniel Sharpe was asked on the witness stand why he had not just kicked the knife away, he said: "I was terrified. I feared for my life and my father's life at that point."
Mr Anderson reminded the jury of this, saying: "Only he knows the fear he had at that time."
The barrister said it was easy to sit in a calm courtroom and consider someone's actions "completely unreasonable", but in the heat of the moment Daniel Sharpe had acted reasonably.
He told the jury his client would only have stabbed and killed Mr Drake because he had no other choice, saying no other reason made sense.
Mr Anderson will continue his closing address on Friday.
