Prosecutors have advised a jury not to convict a woman who shot her ex-partner and his mother believing they were sexually abusing her son, because she was mentally unwell at the time.
A jury will on Friday begin deliberating the fate of the woman, who was also convinced her then husband and mother-in-law belonged to a pedophile ring along with the Northern Territory police commissioner, members of the Freemasons and the Illuminati.
Prosecutor Paul Usher told a Darwin Supreme Court jury on Thursday they should find the woman, who cannot be named, not guilty due to mental impairment on eight charges relating to attempted murder, kidnapping and deprivation of liberty.
Justice Trevor Riley likened the case to an action movie. "It was very dramatic," he said, "but when it all boils down, it's very sad."
Three psychiatrists agreed the Northern Territory woman began experiencing paranoid delusions several months after her son was born, around the time her relationship with his father ended.
She became convinced her ex-partner was molesting the boy, a belief which intensified after he was granted sole custody.
She was inconsolable in her grief and fearful for her six-year-old, her fiance testified. He also said she felt let down when a police investigation into her allegations found no evidence.
On May 7 last year, she entered the home her ex-partner lived in with their son and his mother, and held her mother-in-law at gunpoint before driving with her to the boy's school.
On the way, they ran into his father and a violent pursuit ensued with two cars exceeding 140km/h, at times driving on the wrong side of the Stuart Highway.
The woman shot her former mother-in-law, injuring her in the arm and chest, and shot her ex-partner in the thumb.
"That shot was fired directly at (him), with the intention to kill," Mr Usher told the jury in his closing remarks, but said the Crown asked that they find her not guilty due to mental impairment.
Defence counsel Tom Berkley said just because the woman had gone to her ex-partner's house armed didn't mean she intended to harm anyone.
"There are axes to grind here," he said of her ex-partner's evidence that the woman was trying to kill him.
"Shooting into a vehicle is a dangerous thing but it doesn't necessarily indicate an attempted murder."
The woman had a genuine belief her son was being harmed and was acting to protect him, Justice Riley said, "perhaps not in an appropriate way".
It was crucial to determine whether she intended to kill, he told the jury.
They will retire on Friday morning to deliberate their verdict.
Share
