Ross Tighe, 34, forcefully rejected defense claims that Queensland cattle farmer Darryl Valroy Young wasn't present when three people were killed and Tighe himself was allegedly shot at a remote property gate in Bogie. The dramatic cross-examination unfolded Wednesday in a Townsville Supreme Court trial where Young faces three murder charges and one attempted murder charge.
Tighe, testifying via video link from Mackay courthouse, raised his voice when defense lawyer Anthony J Kimmins suggested Young never appeared at the gate during the alleged shooting. "He was there," Tighe insisted. "Darryl was at the front gate." Young has pleaded not guilty to all charges stemming from the August 4, 2022 incident that claimed the lives of Graham Tighe, Maree Schwarz, and Mervyn Schwarz.
Defense Strategy Emerges
Kimmins told jurors the farmer never saw the Tighes or the Schwarzes, who worked a neighbouring cattle station, on that day. He asked jurors to consider whether anyone else had a motive to kill. The defense attorney's questioning explored potential inconsistencies in the physical evidence, including photos of the shirt Tighe wore when he said he was shot and images of the driver's seat in the car he allegedly drove while wounded.
Kimmins pressed Tighe on the absence of a bullet entry hole on the shirt and the absence of blood in the car. "Entry holes aren't really that big — it didn't bleed that much," Tighe replied. The witness confirmed he'd made a civil claim against Young for injuries suffered, a detail that could speak to financial motivations in the case.
Credibility Under Scrutiny
The court heard Tighe had a history of drug use and had been charged with possession of cannabis and MDMA as well as obstructing police. When questioned about his criminal history, Tighe grew critical of the defense approach, saying Kimmins was "scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit." Justice Christopher Johnstone warned him against commenting on the line of questioning.
Tighe confirmed he'd lost his gun licence following one of his convictions, though he couldn't pinpoint when that happened. When Kimmins asked whether he ever grew cannabis or assisted anyone to grow cannabis, Tighe didn't answer and instead claimed legal privilege. The refusal to answer raises questions about what additional information might exist beyond what's been presented in court.
Financial Picture Presented
Text messages between Tighe and his former partner, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were shown to the court. "What has this got to do with anything?" Tighe asked. One message from his then-girlfriend read, "I am stressed about having no money," which Tighe explained by saying, "We were trying to save more money."
The court examined Tighe's tax return from 2021-22, which stated he'd earned $35,688 over 12 months with the majority of the income from his family's business. The financial records provide context for the family's economic situation at the time of the alleged shooting. Messages between the couple that made mention of physical violence and a domestic violence order were also presented. Tighe denied he'd been physically violent towards the woman and denied that he had a DVO placed on him.
Trial Continues
The jury trial has heard that Young is accused of using a rifle to shoot the four family members when they attended the gate of his Bogie cattle property for a meeting. Tighe finished giving evidence on Wednesday. The Supreme Court trial in Townsville is expected to run for three weeks.
Why This Matters:
This case tests fundamental principles of evidence and credibility that underpin the criminal justice system. The defense's strategy of questioning witness reliability through prior conduct and financial circumstances reflects the adversarial process designed to protect the accused's right to a fair trial. The absence of physical evidence matching the witness account — no visible bullet hole in clothing, no blood in the vehicle — raises legitimate questions that a jury must weigh against eyewitness testimony. The witness's refusal to answer questions about cannabis cultivation under legal privilege and his confirmed civil claim against the defendant introduce factors that could affect how jurors assess his account. In rural property disputes where neighbours work adjacent cattle stations, establishing what actually occurred requires scrutinizing every claim through the lens of both evidence and potential bias.