The trial of a man accused of assaulting Senator Jeff Baron continued yesterday, with Magistrate Archibald Warner challenging the senator’s actions.

Victor Moore Johnston has denied charges of assaulting Sen Baron, having care and control of a vehicle while impaired and refusing or failing to provide Police with a breath sample.

During the trial, Sen Baron testified that on the evening of August 27 last year, he approached the defendant in the Swizzle Inn parking lot because he was concerned that the man was about to drive his family home while drunk.

He told the court that he asked the defendant to get a taxi and Mr Johnston responded by threatening to “kick his a**”.

The senator said he reached inside the defendant’s vehicle and turned off the engine. As a result, Mr Johnston attempted to get out of the vehicle, but Sen Baron blocked the door with his body.

Sen Baron stepped away from the door when a security guard approached. He alleged that Mr Johnston then got out of the car and charged at him, pushing him back and punching him in the face.

The senator said that after being struck, he swung his arm around the defendant’s head and the pair fell to the ground, where the defendant continued to strike him until the security officer pulled them apart. Sen Baron testified that he then grabbed the defendant’s keys from out of his car, holding on to them despite the protests of the defendant and the security officer until Police arrived. He told the court that he refused to turn over the keys to either man because he had heard the security guard tell the defendant to drive home. Police, meanwhile, testified that when they spoke to Mr Johnston he appeared to be impaired and refused to provide a breath sample, telling officers: “I’m not taking no test.”

As the trial approached its conclusion yesterday, prosecutor Victoria Greening closed her case by saying that several witnesses testified that they believed Mr Johnston to be drunk and two police officers had said he appeared to be unsteady on his feet, speaking with a slurred voice and smelling strongly of alcohol. Given the circumstances, she said the officers had reasonable cause to believe that Mr Johnston was impaired and had care and control of the car.

She also argued that Sen Baron had acted in the honest-held belief that the defendant was drunk, but Mr Warner said that he had effectively attacked the defendant by reaching into his car.

“What right does Sen Baron have to do what he did?” Mr Warner asked. “He attacked the defendant by shutting the car off and barricading the car. That’s the evidence of Sen Baron.”

While he acknowledged the concept of “higher good conduct,” he said such behaviour must be balanced against the “flagrant breach of someone’s rights”.

Mr Warner said: “Rather than go and attack the defendant, he rather had to say to the security officer, as was his duty as a citizen, ‘Look, I believe that man there is endangering his family. I believe he is drunk. Would you stop him?’

“Sen Baron said he didn’t see the security guard. That cannot be right. I don’t accept that.”

He also noted the written statement of a woman who attended Swizzle Inn with Sen Baron. She said she heard the security officer and the restaurant manager tell the senator that they would drive Mr Johnston home, which Mr Warner said was in contradiction.

Defence lawyer Charles Richardson said that Mr Johnston, who did not take the stand himself, had acted in self-defence after Sen Baron had trespassed by reaching into the car and then unlawfully detained him by blocking the car’s door.

“At that stage, Mr Johnston was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent any further interference with his property,” Mr Richardson said. “He tried to get out. Sen Baron held the door against him, pushed the door against him. That would be assault.”

Mr Warner adjourned the matter until March 19, when he will deliver his ruling.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding active court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.