In a statement exclusively provided to the Newcastle Herald after he was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter over the death of Richard Slater on Wednesday, Mr Batterham said the last few years had been extremely stressful, psychologically damaging and financially ruinous.

He had been subjected to repeated death threats, spent two months behind bars, had been forced to move his family to a secret location due to safety concerns and had been plagued by PTSD and other psychological trauma stemming from the death of Mr Slater.

And even while at that secret address, his car was broken into and someone killed his neighbour's dog and left the collar hanging on his fence.

"I spent two months in jail and have waited three-and-a-half years to be found innocent by a jury," Mr Batterham said. "The past years have been a great burden on my family, myself and it has been financially ruinous."

Mr Batterham, 36, an apprentice chef at the time he was charged with murder, said he planned to revisit his interest in cooking now that strict bail conditions, which prevented him from entering any licensed premises, were no longer in place.

And more generally, 1334 days after he made the split-second decision to chase Richard Slater out of his home, Mr Batterham planned to get on with the rest of his life and not let those who wish him harm affect him.

"I am determined that the threats made to me should not prevent me from going about my business as any free man is entitled to," Mr Batterham said.

Mr Batterham, represented by barrister Winston Terracini, SC, had faced a two-week trial in Newcastle Supreme Court, which focused on the cause of death of Mr Slater, who had a "potentially lethal" level of methamphetamine in his system, pre-existing heart disease and obesity when he was chased and pinned down after he was found coming out of Mr Batterham's young daughter's bedroom in the early hours of Easter Sunday, 2016.

The prosecution case was that while he had a legal right to chase and restrain Mr Slater, Mr Batterham "went completely over the top" and was "exacting some form of revenge" when he repeatedly punched Mr Slater, held him in a "choke-hold" and ignored the pleas of Mr Slater and other neighbours to let him up.

In order for the jury to convict him of murder, the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an act perpetrated by Mr Batterham "significantly or substantially contributed" to the death of Mr Slater.

Crown prosecutor Wayne Creasey said that act was Mr Batterham applying pressure to Mr Slater's neck and downward pressure to his upper body while Mr Slater was in a prone position.

But the medical experts were split over the exact cause of Mr Slater's death and the significance that any "choke-hold" had on triggering Mr Slater's three episodes of cardiac arrest, with clinical toxicologist Dr Naren Gunja the only expert who opined that asphyxiation caused Mr Slater's death.

Conjunct associate professor Dr Michael Kennedy, a forensic toxicologist and pharmacologist, discounted the contribution of the "choke hold" and said it was "highly unlikely" Mr Slater would have died had he not ingested methamphetamine.

The remaining experts, among them some of the world's most eminent cardiologists, toxicologists and forensic pathologists, could not be certain as to what the primary cause of death was.

A number of those experts gave evidence that either the methamphetamine alone could have killed Mr Slater or said that the level of the drug combined with Mr Slater's pre-existing heart disease was what likely caused his death.

And a number of those experts were highly critical of Dr Gunja's opinion and reasoning.

Either way, the medical evidence never reached the standard required for a jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Batterham "substantially or significantly" contributed to the death of Mr Slater.

And so, after deliberating for about three-and-a-half hours, the jury returned on Wednesday and found Mr Batterham not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

The verdict was met with silence, but Mr Slater's family and supporters stormed out of the courtroom shortly after and headed outside where emotions spilled over.

Mr Slater's mother, Beryl Dickson, said she had expected Mr Batterham to have at least been found guilty of manslaughter over her son's death.

"All they worried about was his little bite [on Mr Batterham]," she said. "My son was f---king choked. Why didn't they show photos of my son in the hospital, what damage he'd done to my son?"

Mr Slater's aunt, Pauline Dickson, said the verdict surprised her.

"We're just really disappointed in the jury and the judge and everyone there," she said. "He done wrong, he killed him."

Mr Batterham walked from court about 15 minutes later amid heightened security around the precinct.

He spoke briefly to the media, saying it was "time to move on and get on with life".

"I'm very happy about the verdict, about being found not guilty," Mr Batterham said. "It's been a long couple of years and finally it's over."

The years since Mr Batterham's "sliding doors" moment, his decision to chase and restrain Mr Slater, must have felt surreal at times.

It all started about 3.20am on March 26, 2016 when Mr Batterham and Mr Slater, two men who had never met, crossed paths and their lives were changed forever.

Mr Batterham was an apprentice chef with a young family who was drinking and celebrating his birthday with a friend at home in Cleary Street.

Mr Slater, meanwhile, had a criminal history, including spending four years in jail for raping a teenage girl, and had only been released from jail four months earlier after successfully appealing against a four-year jail term for aggravated break-and-enter and fraud offences. The jury was not told about his criminal history.

Mr Batterham spotted Mr Slater in the hallway of his home and gave chase, but lost Mr Slater a short time later. Mr Batterham was on the phone to triple-zero when he spotted him again, the operator recording the subsequent chase, tackle and struggle, during which Mr Batterham pinned Mr Slater to the ground in a "choke-hold" and repeatedly punched him in the head.

Mr Batterham was initially charged with recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm and granted bail. But when Mr Slater died in hospital the next day he handed himself in to be charged with murder and was bail refused. He spent six weeks behind bars before he was granted strict bail, which included the condition that he not consume alcohol.

But then, nearly two years later, Mr Batterham went back behind bars after his arrest for high-range drinking driving revealed he had been "brazenly" and "flagrantly" breaching his bail by regularly drinking alcohol at a Newcastle hotel.

Newcastle Local Court in 2018 heard that Mr Batterham's drinking was his way of self-medicating and coping with the psychological trauma he was suffering and the threats he was receiving since Mr Slater's death. On the night he was caught drink-driving he had received death threats from people at the hotel who had worked out who he was.

Terrified and fearful he would be followed home, Mr Batterham got behind the wheel and drove in the other direction. He spent more time behind bars before being granted Supreme Court bail.

Immediately after the jury filed out of the courtroom, Mr Terracini flagged a costs application, telling Justice Desmond Fagan the defence had made a no bill application to the DPP in early July, making clear the evidence was not capable of establishing Mr Batterham's guilt.

The DPP replied on the final business day before the trial this month, denying the application, Mr Terracini said. "All of the strong points made in this trial would have been known to the appropriate assessor of the no bill application," Mr Terracini said.

A conservative estimate of Mr Batterham's legal fees is more than $500,000.