Police officer Kristian White's guilty finding of Clare Nowland's ...

The time it took a jury to reach a verdict in the manslaughter trial of NSW Senior Constable Kristian White seems at odds with the fast-paced delivery of evidence, but suggests this case is far more complex than it appears.

On Wednesday a Supreme Court jury found Kristian James Samuel White guilty on its fifth day of deliberations after hearing eight days of evidence in a trial initially scheduled to run for four weeks.

It was not in dispute that White, a 34-year-old police officer, had tasered 95-year-old Clare Nowland in her aged care home at Yallambee Lodge, Cooma, in May 2023.

That the senior constable owed Mrs Nowland a duty of care was also undisputed.

Clare Nowland, 95, died a week after being tasered from an inoperable brain bleed. (Supplied)

So why was the jury's deliberation so protracted?

The crux of this trial was whether or not White's actions were reasonably necessary.

To figure that out the 12 jurors were asked to step into the shoes of White and ask themselves whether a reasonable person would have done the same thing.

The Crown said any threat Mrs Nowland posed to the people near her when she was tasered was "limited", given she was a "frail, old lady".

But the defence suggested that "the people there didn't think so".

Mrs Nowland relied on her walker for mobility, weighed 47.5 kilograms at autopsy, and was posthumously believed to have suffered from frontotemporal dementia.

The Crown argued that Mrs Nowland posed no imminent threat due to her advanced age, her lack of mobility, her state of mind, and her risk of falling, as well as the combined strength of the officers present and their ability to move away to a safe distance.

But the defence said she was a threat in the context of the event.

Defence barrister Troy Edwards SC represented Kristian White in court. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)

Police attended Yallambee Lodge before 5am after a staff member contacted triple-0 to request an ambulance due to reports of an aggressive resident holding knives — initially two — and walking into other residents' rooms and pointing the knives at staff.

White asserted that he was told by lodge staff that they were "threatened" by Mrs Nowland, but the Crown argued that language was inconsistent with the evidence heard over the course of the trial.

White later logged the incident back at the police station and, when he chose the reason he deployed his taser, he selected "imminent threat to police/public" from a drop-down menu.

The defence told the court the threat Mrs Nowland posed was credible because she had failed to put down the knife when asked repeatedly to do so and had scared other witnesses.

White told the court he believed Mrs Nowland would stab anyone who neared her, but the Crown argued that she had not done so in the two hours she had knives with her and would not be physically capable of doing so, meaning she was not an imminent threat.

The Crown suggested that White used the words "bugger it" before deploying his taser because he was "fed-up, impatient, not prepared to wait any longer".

Crown Prosecutor Brett Hatfield represented the state of NSW in court. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)

The defence contested that claim and said White had done his best and had "run out of options".

Body-worn camera footage from the two police officers, including White, were played to the court during the trial, showing attempts to verbally get Mrs Nowland to stay seated and to drop the knife, but were unsuccessful.

The footage also showed attempts to physically grab the knife from Mrs Nowland, to keep her contained in the room, and to activate the warning-arc feature of the taser.

Mrs Nowland could be seen slowly using her walker and at times stopping and raising a serrated steak knife in her right hand.

Clare Nowland was initially seen with two knives, and later a pen light and one knife. (Supplied.)

White could be heard on the camera footage say "bugger it" before he discharged the taser.

The whole exchange took about three minutes.

On day six of the trial the defence asked White why he said those words.

"In my mind I was weighing up essentially the danger that was increasing at the time," he said.

"I didn't want to taser Clare, but I was also weighing up the safety of everyone present.

"That's why I said it."

Under cross-examination the Crown asked if that meant he had had enough.

White said it did not.

In closing arguments the Crown told the jury that White had not sufficiently addressed why he said those words.

Why did White not walk away instead?

He explained this was not a possibility in his role as a police officer because he did not think it was safe to let Mrs Nowland continue to roam the facility with a knife and put others at risk.

"That wouldn't have resolved the situation," White said on day six of the trial.

"In my mind that would have been a breach of that peace."

The Crown challenged his justification for using the taser and asked why the officer did not back off given he had the ability to.

"I could step away but that wouldn't resolve the situation. She was still armed with a knife," White said.

"You could avoid being stabbed by stepping away, couldn't you?" the Crown asked.

"It's a possibility," White said.

"It's more than a possibility, it's a likelihood," the Crown said.

"It's a possibility," Mr White reiterated.

There has been national interest in Kristian White's legal journey. (ABC South East NSW: Floss Adams)

Under NSW law police officers are allowed to use a certain amount of force to maintain peace, hence why they're trained to use and carry a variety of weapons, or "appointments", including a taser.

Justice Ian Harrison referred to Section 230 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 in his summing up address to the jury on day eight of the trial.

The act states the following:

It is lawful for a police officer exercising a function under this Act or any other Act or law in relation to an individual or a thing, and anyone helping the police officer, to use such force as is reasonably necessary to exercise the function.

The process of a police officer making an evaluation about when and what level of force to adopt was heard in this trial to be "a balancing act" and where the age, disability, and mental illness was to be factored in by the individual officer making the decision.

White maintains as part of the trial that his actions were necessary, in the circumstances, in his role as a police officer with the information he had at the time.

The Crown described the use of force as "utterly unnecessary and obviously excessive" against Mrs Nowland and that the footage of her being tasered "speaks for itself".

It was ultimately up to the jury, who were selected to represent a cross-section of the community in wisdom and justice, to decide what they believe based on the evidence put before them and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.