Michael Mullen has pleaded not guilty to assaulting a nursing home resident in his care. The case against an aged care worker accused of bashing an elderly resident will hinge on the evidence of the alleged victim’s roommate, an Adelaide court has heard. Michael Andrew Mullen is on trial charged with the aggravated assault of 72-year-old Elizabeth Hannaford in November, 2015. Mullen was working a night shift at Southern Cross Care’s Lourdes Valley residential care centre, south of Adelaide, when the alleged attack occurred. Ms Hannaford, who was found with significant bruising and swelling, died several months later. In closing submissions on Thursday, Adelaide Magistrates Court heard Ms Hannaford’s roommate, Meg Rogers, was the only witness to the alleged attack. Prosecutor Patrick Hill said Ms Rogers, who has also since died, told police she heard Mullen bash Ms Hannaford. He said Ms Rogers described to police “escalating tension” between the pair in the lead-up to the incident, after Ms Hannaford repeatedly pulled out the cord to sensor mats around her bed. According to Ms Rogers, Mullen said “there will be bloody consequences if you continue this behaviour” and “you are being silly, stop your crying”. “She could hear the accused’s anger … and she could hear Ms Hannaford crying out in response,” he said. “She describes, in some detail, then hearing what can easily be inferred to be an assault.” While Mr Hill described Ms Rogers’ account as “a very articulate description”, defence counsel Heath Barklay said she gave a number of different versions to police. He raised concern the inconsistencies could not be clarified because she could not be cross-examined. “There are profound problems with Ms Rogers’ reliability and credibility,” he said. “Your honour should give Mr Mullen the benefit of the doubt here and not rely on her evidence to find this charge proven.” Mr Barklay said the medical evidence could exclude the possibility that Ms Hannaford’s injuries were the result of a fall. Magistrate Paul Foley last year ruled Ms Hannaford’s evidence inadmissible because of doubts over her competency at the time, but ruled Ms Rogers’ could be included. He is scheduled to hand down his verdict later this month.
