Barrister Margaret Cunneen, SC, for Mr Davis, told the court after the verdicts were delivered that Mr Davis should be released on bail pending his sentence because he would require "very intensive psychological preparation" to enter prison, "where frankly, Your Honour, he does not belong".

She said Mr Davis's mother and brother could lose their homes if he breached bail because they would forfeit their surety.

"He is a gentle man, and a man who of course would never have come before the courts but for the actions of Jett McKee," Ms Cunneen said.

She said the case "cries out for the mercy of this court for bail" and it was "too great and crushing a punishment to impose that on him today".

But Crown prosecutor Chris Taylor applied for Mr Davis to be detained immediately and said Ms Cunneen's characterisation of Mr Davis as gentle was perhaps "not quite consistent" with the jury verdict.

Justice Natalie Adams will make a decision on Mr Davis's bail later on Tuesday.

In their closing addresses to the jury, the barristers acting for Mr Davis and Ms Quinn, Ms Cunneen and Tom Hughes, had described Mr Davis's actions as heroic and "one quick hit" to ward off a mortal threat.

But Mr Taylor submitted to the jury that this was "not a case of self-defence" but a "senseless" and "unlawful" attack on Mr McKee, 30, after he had left Mr Davis’s Forest Lodge house.

On Monday, one of the 12 jurors was discharged after he was hospitalised following a fall.

Justice Adams directed the remaining 11 jurors that in order to deliver a guilty verdict to murder they would need to be persuaded by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Davis did not believe at the time that his conduct was necessary for his or Ms Quinn's defence, as he contended.

Loading

If the Crown failed to prove this, Justice Adams said the jury would need to consider whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Davis was guilty of manslaughter because he used "excessive force", meaning his actions were unreasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. If the jury was not persuaded of this, either, the verdict would be not guilty to both charges on the basis of self-defence.

Justice Adams added that if the jury had "completely discounted self-defence" and was otherwise satisfied Mr Davis was guilty of murder, they should consider the partial defence of "extreme provocation".

The partial defence, which reduces murder to manslaughter, relates to an act of an accused causing death that was done in response to a serious criminal offence directed towards them that led them to lose self-control, where the conduct directed towards them "could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the extent of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm".

The court heard Mr McKee, who had a "toxic to lethal" level of methylamphetamine, or ice, in his blood, burst into Mr Davis's home in the afternoon armed with knuckledusters and a pistol that fired blanks before striking Mr Davis in the face with a fist encased in knuckledusters.

Mr Davis told the court he woke up from the blow with blood on his face, believing he had been shot. He said he grabbed the samurai sword displayed near his front door, an 18th birthday gift from his older brother, and ran towards the sound of Ms Quinn screaming outside in a bid to "save" her.

The court heard Ms Quinn had chased after Mr McKee after he grabbed her bag. She told police in a recorded interview that Mr McKee was "holding a gun up at me" when Mr Davis dealt the fatal blow.

But the prosecutor, Mr Taylor, alleged the threat Mr McKee posed to Mr Davis and Ms Quinn "dissipated" with every step he took away from the house.

The court heard Mr Davis and Ms Quinn had sold cannabis from his home, and it was alleged Mr McKee needed money and wanted to rob a drug dealer. Mr Davis gave evidence Ms Quinn was selling cannabis for $20 a gram.

Justice Adams delivered a strong direction to the jury that evidence of the pair's involvement in the use and sale of cannabis was led because "it formed part of the circumstances as to why [they] were targeted".

The evidence was not to be used to reason that they were more likely to be guilty of the offences for which they were on trial because they had "been involved in some other illegal activity", she said.

The court heard 122.1 grams of cannabis had been found at Mr Davis's home, which was classified as a small quantity. It was below the threshold at which the law would deem the drugs to be in a person's possession for the purposes of supply.

The pair will be sentenced at a later date.