Jurors to decide if trio agreed to cause serious harm in Alice Springs teen murder trial

The central issue for jurors in the trial of three people charged with murdering Alice Springs teenager Yiel Deng Gatluak will be whether prosecutors have proven the trio agreed to cause him serious harm, a court has heard.

The 19-year-old was found dead on Undoolya Road, 10 kilometres east of the Northern Territory town on New Year's Day 2024, with Koang Wuordol, Guandong Guandong and a teenage boy who cannot be named for legal reasons facing a six-week trial in the Supreme Court.

All three have pleaded not guilty.

Justice Jenny Blokland today began summarising the case for the jury, outlining the key legal questions they must consider before reaching their verdicts.

She told jurors the Crown's case was not that any one of the accused acted alone, but that the alleged offending was based on what the law calls joint commission.

Justice Blokland said prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each of the accused entered into an agreement to cause serious harm to Mr Gatluak, and that conduct under that agreement caused his death.

Justice Blokland said if jurors had a reasonable doubt about whether any of the accused intended to cause him serious harm, they would need to consider the alternative offences of manslaughter and violent act causing death.

Videos not enough by themselves, judge says

Video footage played to the jury last week allegedly showing parts of the assault on Mr Gatluak as he lay injured on the ground has become central to competing arguments about intent.

In one video, one of the three co-accused can be heard saying "good luck walking home", which the Crown argued was sarcastic, showing they knew Mr Gatluak could not return to town.

But the defence lawyers argued it should be taken literally, submitting that it meant the accused expected Mr Gatluak would survive and walk home and they did not intend to cause him serious harm.

Justice Blokland said much of the prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the video footage, phone records, vehicle movements, forensic evidence and the conduct of the accused before and after Mr Gatluak's death.

She told jurors circumstantial evidence was not necessarily weaker than direct evidence but must be considered as a whole and the video footage was not enough on its own to prove the prosecution case.

Justice Blokland said serious harm included life-endangering injury or harm that was significant and longstanding.

She said if jurors found only an agreement to cause lesser harm, the accused would not be guilty of murder, but jurors would then need to consider the alternative charges.

The case returns to court tomorrow when Justice Blokland will continue summing the case up for the jury before they retire to consider their verdicts.