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 1 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 doesnt paint a clear picture. In P.C. Hears 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 its 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 2 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, its 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, wouldnt 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 customers 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 th Daniels. The defendant merely explains the events that occurred on the 18 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 Daniels 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 cannot legally charge Kelly Daniels with this crime because it is ones 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.
nd st