Former NRL star Michael Lichaa has been acquitted of domestic violences charges after his former partner refused to turn up to court and ex-teammate Adam Elliott vouched for his version of events.
The 18-month saga finally drew to a close on Friday when Mr Lichaa was found not guilty of assaulting his former partner Kara Childerhouse during a heated late-night incident at his south Sydney home.
Mr Lichaa, 29, has persistently denied assaulting his former finance and magistrate Melissa Humphreys on Friday acquitted him of common assault and intimidation charges.
His trial before Magistrate Melissa Humphreys took a sensational twist on Thursday when Ms Childerhouse refused to turn up to Sutherland Local Court to give evidence.
Despite being subpoenaed and midway through her testimony police were unable to contact her after knocking on her door and calling her.
The court heard that she no longer wanted to take part in the proceedings and was pregnant and worried about the stress of reliving the incident.
All of her testimony which she had given up until that point was excluded though a statement, in which she retracted the allegations, was admitted into.
It left the prosecution with no evidence to tender on the assault charge.
Police had alleged he was involved in an argument, which prompted concerned neighbors to call police to his Connels Point home.
The court has heard that the incident occurred after Mr Lichaa caught Ms Childerhouse performing a sexual act on his mate and former teammate Adam Elliott.
Mr Elliott told the court on Thursday that he had been drinking for 12 hours following a party at Mr Lichaa’s home.
When it was suggested that Mr Lichaa had assaulted Ms Childerhouse, he said “I disagree.”
Mr Elliott told the court that Mr Lichaa exclaimed “what the f*** are you doing?” and went outside and walked back and forth in a heated state.
A witness previously told the court that she heard a man saying loudly “I’m going to f***ing kill her”.
His lawyer James Trevallion denied that amounted to an offence of intimidation, adding there was no evidence the words were said in her presence.
“Clearly it was a situation where there was a lot of emotion and feeling and it would be remarkable when walking up and down the street if he wasn’t yelling and screaming and emotional and upset about what had occurred,” Mr Trevallion told the court. on Friday.