In Defence Of The Troll
Category C: Highly Commended (2026) Monash Short Story Writing Competition
Author: Michael Hornung
Sugar knew the troll would be difficult to defend. The most obvious problem was the fact he did not trust her because she was a goat. She welcomed a challenge, if somewhat daunted by the need to hide her revulsion on catching a whiff of the troll. She did not fear trolls despite a reputation for violence. She understood this reputation was not supported by statistical facts but rather on a deep-seated prejudice. A couple of her colleagues were trolls. They were cordial and respectful and used the strongest deodorants on the market. One went as far as undergoing cosmetic surgery.
Sugar regarded the charges as flimsy, the first being obstruction of passage. She rebutted this one by pointing out that the three billy goats were hellbent on trespassing in the lush green pastures on the other side of the bridge. The farmer who owned these lands had taken pity on the troll, allowing him to shelter under the bridge indefinitely. He also supplied him with food leftovers. It was therefore only reasonable, according to Sugar, for the troll to repay this kindness by stopping the billy goats from crossing. The troll may have asserted the bridge was his bridge for dramatic effect.
The second more serious charge of attempted murder would prove harder to contend. It was a case of he said she said - the only witnesses: two other billy goats with a conflict of interest. Sugar would attempt to make the jury see the holes in their stories. She hoped they repeated the absurd statements recorded by the police. However, when the time arrived for them to give evidence they were more measured and consistent in their delivery. Sugar referred the jury to the discrepancies from earlier testimony. The prosecutor - a preeminent badger feared for his merciless tendency to badger witnesses - was quick to explain that billy goats suffering from PTSD often experienced intermittent confusion or amnesia. He introduced a prominent ruminant psychologist to the witness box to back up this claim. He also reminded the jury that the billy goats were not on trial and accused his opposing counsel of trivialising their trauma. The billy goats performed their part with ease. The two younger ones shook in trepidation each time the troll glanced their way while the biggest one with a long dirty grey beard stood motionless, exuding a dignified solemnity.
Sugar was seriously considering a counterclaim of assault against this same billy goat. If she could persuade the troll to discreetly expose his buttocks, the angry red horn marks would prove assault and suggest the troll was the most intimidated party. There was more to be gained theatrically by a live revelation instead of time-stamped photographs. Sugar never underestimated the role of theatre in winning over the jury. She was all ready to execute this plan as soon as the prosecutor finished droning on about the ‘inherent evils’ of trolls and how all the charges were consistent with known behaviours. Unfortunately, when the prosecutor seemed to be wrapping up, he went off on another tangent, the subject of which took Sugar by surprise. It made her second guess her next move. He brought up an incident from the troll’s childhood. The troll threatened to kill another troll-boy in a sandpit at school. The boy stepped carelessly on the troll’s sand-bridge. The troll used similar language to what he allegedly directed at the billy goats. There were multiple impartial witnesses and it was all recorded in the school's daily incident report which was shown to the judge, the jury, and Sugar herself. She felt the pendulum shifting sharply in favour of the prosecution. She objected to being ambushed by evidence not supplied earlier to the defence and questioned its relevance.
The third charge against the troll was anti-social behaviour. While rather trivial at face value, he could, if convicted, be banned from the bridge with a detrimental impact on his physical and psychological welfare and sense of belonging. Sugar argued there was provocation and no impartial witnesses. She contested the fourth charge of disturbing the peace by flipping the script, stating that the billy goats disturbed the troll’s peace. She called the farmer to the witness box. He described how on the day before the incident he heard and saw the billy goats taunting the troll. They called him a: ‘fat lazy slob’ who stank of ‘rancid fish and chips’ and should ‘piss off and find a job!’ The farmer sent them scurrying off with a few warning shots. Sugar felt the warm satisfaction after landing a blow. She did not however expect the prosecutor to decline a cross examination, instead pivoting back to the second charge of attempted murder. He claimed the troll snapped and while he did not condone the actions of the billy goats who pushed him over the edge, they were merely silly kids with no understanding of how the world works:
‘Moreover its when a hungry troll becomes angry’, the prosecutor continued pompously, ‘he’s in effect hangry and in this state of “hanger” he’s most dangerous! This case is no exception.’
A flustered Sugar objected to him calling grown up billy goats ‘kids’ provoking some sniggering from members of the public watching from the gallery. The prosecutor brushed this aside, claiming it was a figure of speech. The troll then insisted on taking the stand where he became agitated and mumbled something about the bright lights above making him dizzy. He could offer little more than a barely audible statement:
‘Hate goat meat - hate goats.’
Sugar almost exploded in frustration. It was an admission of eating goat. Suspicious minds would wonder how he obtained goat meat and whether he murdered and butchered the goats prior to consumption. In Sugar’s opinion, the troll was too docile, slow and uncoordinated to catch a goat in the first place but she suspected the jury was viewing everything very differently; more so when the prosecutor verbally lacerated the troll on cross examination.
There are no prizes for knowing the fable about three rambunctious billy goats encountering a vile, menacing troll. Few people know its at least half true and even fewer how it all went down; how a harmless troll lost a court case because a jury dominated by goats failed to properly consider the evidence. When the guilty verdict was read out, the troll looked perplexed, the farmer wept and Sugar felt miserable. They all felt worse when he was sentenced to death and hung from the same bridge where the drama unfolded.