8/4/2019 First Defence Lawyer Closing Speech

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-defence-lawyer-closing-speech 1/1

Elisabeth Hopkins 8S

First Defence Lawyer – Closing Speech

Your worships, you have now heard all of the evidence presented to this court. The charge against my

client has been stated as being an assault of Andy Daniels by beating on the corner of Queens Road and Kings

Road, New Town, which is a residential area. This is contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I submit to your worships that Kelly Daniels cannot be legally found guilty of this crime due to

insufficient evidence against the defence.

You have heard P.C. Jaswinder Hear, the 1st

Prosecution Witness, state that he could see a substantial

distance from his position in the changing rooms of New Town Police Station to the scene approximately

150meters away. Yet as previously stated, yes, 150 meters is a substantial distance, and therefore the view of 

any citizen with regular eye sight would be impaired. P.C. Hear has stated that because he has not told us

upon which floor he was situated, we cannot judge his view. Despite this fact, P.C. Hear stated during his

witness statement, I quote, ‘New Town Police Station is a high rise building  – 8 floors high and is surrounded

by a network of residential streets. It towers above the neighbourhood and one can see surrounding streets

for a substantial distance.’ If this is true, P.C. Hear must have been situated on a higher floor to be able to

make this statement plausible, but because he has not stated which floor upon which he was situated, we

cannot judge his view as reliable since he doesn’t paint a clear picture. In P.C. Hear’s examination in chief, he

stated that Andy Daniels fell onto his back, but in Kelly Daniels examination in chief she stated that Andy

tripped over the curb and feel to the floor. This is conflicting evidence, but it’s clear that Kelly Daniels

obviously had a more reliable view as to P.C. Hears view which was quite a substantial distance away.

You have heard the 2nd

Prosecution Witness, Chris Tonks, state that Kelly entered his pub looking for

her brother at 5:50pm, although it is stated in Kelly Daniels’ statement that she went to look for her brother at

approximately 6:00pm, and would not have been able to have entered the pub before that time. Also, since

being at the pub since 1:30pm, until around 6 when confronted by Kelly, it’s obvious that after 4 and a half 

hours remaining in the pub, and consuming approximately 6 pints of lager, it would have been an appropriate

time for the witness to have asked Andy to leave the pub, wouldn’t you agree? Your worships, it is clear that

after 6 pints of lager, Andy would have been completely intoxicated, and as a responsible bar tender, the

witness in question should have taken into account the amount of alcohol his customer was consuming, for his

own well being. It is therefore clear that the witness in question is not concerned of his customer’s well being,

but as the money that he receives from their daily visits.

You have heard the defendant state that she did not enforce physical abuse upon her brother, Andy

Daniels. The defendant merely explains the events that occurred on the 18th

September, stating that Andy

tripped over the curb, and in the midst of trying to prevent his fall, she grabbed at the collar area of coat with

both hands, although the defendant was not able to prevent the fall. In Andy Daniels statement, he states that

he was walking along the pavement and fell to the floor, where Kelly Daniels proceeded to help him up. If in

fact Kelly Daniels had assaulted Andy Daniels by pushing him to the floor, then there would be no plausible

reason as to why she proceeded to help Andy up after the fall. Also in Andy Daniel’s statement, he states that

he never saw Kelly Daniels assault him, and that there must be a mistake, so clearly your worships, if Andy

Daniels is denying that the assault even took place when he was the alleged victim, surely it could not have

taken place.

I would also like to state, that because the victim of this crime has denied the assault, officers cannotlegally charge Kelly Daniels with this crime because it is one’s word against the other, without 100% evidence

involved.

I SUBMIT TO YOUR WORSHIPS THAT THE DEFENDANT KELLY DANIELS IS NOT GUILTY OF THIS CHARGE.

I would like to invite the court to meet this decision on the grounds of all the evidence that has been

presented by the defence and that the requirement of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ has not been met.

Thank you. That is the case for the defence.