Mr Nolan – You would have noticed in Mr Woodcock’s closing speech that he dealt a lot with the case of Jordan Towers. No doubt there are a lot of questions that the prosecution would have like to ask Jordan. But if the case is inadequate without asking the client questions than that is how it should remain. It is for the crown to prove their case. In a while my Lord will give a direction about the right of silence. Everyone has a right to silence, they are constitutionally allowed to exercise it. I am going to address you why it would not be fair to draw any inference to Jordan from the fact he has chose to exercise his right of silence.

The spot light is now on him, no one, not even the co-accused are suggesting Jordan Towers stabbed Kevin Johnson and dealt him the fatal injury. Occasionally there have been one or two hints at it but realistically and fairly the case from all sides is the killing was done by Dean Curtis or Tony Hawkes and that is crystal clear. The second is this, in interview under caution Jordan admitted that he was the one who threw the rock in the midst of this. He did that on the 19^th of May as one of the first things said during the course of interview when the police had very little evidence at that time, he said I was the one who threw the rock. I will of course deal with the implications of that in a short while. He also said that he had been in possession of a knife. He said that from the very outset at a time when no one had seen him with a knife in his presence. He stated that he did have a knife and he carried it and that he secreted it where he had shown the police, if he had not they would not have found it. At the very outset he was saying this is what I did. This may be a simplistic point of view but it was a very clear statement at that time. Now that it has been recovered you may think it has been excluded as the killing weapon. Mr Bloomfield perhaps omitted or forgot the evidence of the forensic scientist that the blade was too wide to cause the cut to Kevin Johnson in the fatal blow.

In some contrast to his co-accused he has never denied his part or that he carried a knife. Mr Woodcock conceived that those interviews did not contain any confession of the offences on the indictment. But they do form a denial, perhaps with attitude. Mr Woodcock was obviously struck with the phrase bob hope, this is just figure of speech. You are not going to convict a young man guilty of murder because he is cocky. It is clear that Jordan is a juvenile offender albeit that he has no convictions for any offences of violence. I have no quibble that he is not a stranger to the Sunderland police stations or his ability to answer back police questions. Mr Woodcock argues that this makes him a significance and sinister influence on his co-accused. Does it make him the director of operations. But you may think in truth there was no direction to what happened, that it was spontaneous, random and mindless. But the prosecution still have the responsibility of each of those there and that’s why the spot light must remain on Jordan Towers. With a view of seeing what it is that the crown has established can be used to examine his participation. I will start with the shell garage and invite you to consider what Mr Woodcock says. He says it is a continuation of utmost hostility and a state of mind. Mr Shakir statement was read to you, as far as we are concerned there are absolutely no issues with it. Number 2 was the scratch marks, clearly Dean Curtis, male 3 was the youngest with the baby face and then by reference to what others had done he spoke of the abuse, clearly delineated those who had abused him and caused trouble. In relation to the one we submit is clearly Jordan Towers is male 3, he said number 2 and number 1 abused him, during all of this male 3 held up a pound coin and asked for some crisps, he then walked over the forecourt and out of his sight. That is the only mention of Jordan Towers. It is worth remembering that asking for crisps is the only evidence that he was continuing a state of mind of hostility. Of course in an ideal world Jordan should have disassociated himself and probably called the police, this is no public school boy, this is a 16 year old, largely truant, who’s friends are older than him and his routine is nocturnal, let’s be realistic and make allowances for peer pressure on such a young man. It is unrealistic to say he was leaving, he has a tendency to follow the pack. Can you remember Marie Towers’ concern that Jordan did not have friends of his own age. More important is her evidence when on the Saturday morning learning that a man had been killed where Jordan may have been present and Dean Curtis came along, you will remember the reaction and contrast between Dean and Jordan. It mirrors the reaction when Jordan turned up pale at Melanie Mckeiths house. There is a consistent them running through this and that is he seems troubled at what happened.

Let me deal with the stabbing of Jamie Thompson. I agree that it matters not a jot that Jamie was a smack head or not. Whatever the conversation it is crystal clear that Jordan never threatened him nor abused him nor attacked him nor encouraged any of the others to attack him. Male 1, the shortest was over taken after the short conversation that is the other two came in between them. I put it to Jamie that Jordan did not do or say anything and he agreed that Male 1 stood back. It is the prosecution evidence that Jordan’s role was to detain Jamie so he could be stabbed by one of the other two. Well we submit that not only is there no sensible inference to be drawn from that but also there is no logical chronological order of this. When Jordan has crossed over number 2 says are you Jamie, he is then ID’d as Hawkes. Only at that point that seemingly there is recognition by Hawkes of Jamie Thompson. Tony has admitted he did know him and did not like him and potentially there was a grudge between them. One can see a private vendetta. There is simply no evidence that Jordan knew of any history between Tony and Jamie. We are entitled to submit that so far as Jamie Thompson it happened quickly and silently so far as the stabbing is concerned. Jamie said he did it quick, he did not see the weapon before it stabbed him, no doubt Mr Hill will have something to say but I would say it suggests this stabbing was a private and personal attack of Tony Hawkes who recognised Jamie after Jordan had spoken with him no matter what this was about.

I turn now to the tragic killing of Kevin Johnson. There was a hostile encounter between Kevin and one of the defendants. I make no comment about whether it was an error of judgement but there was a hostile encounter. Mr Woodcock has conducted this case with fairness. He describes the second stage of this incident that involved the stabbing of Kevin Johnson, he concedes a true analysis of Marsha Newby’s evidence and that is Jordan Towers was standing off. I would of course suggest that is a proper analysis of the evidence. When the fighting was at a peak and the stabbing occurred Jordan was stood off and not involved in the fighting. Whether or not Jordan is right or left handed he did not stab Kevin Johnson. Whoever made this stabbing motion it was not Jordan Towers. So once again the prosecution are induced to ask you to infer that this was an agreement to stab Kevin Johnson. We answer that in part by the degree of stealth that was involved in this stabbing. It was sneaky, unannounced and not advertised to his victim. Rather secretively and in a deadly fashion. This is important when you consider the prosecution saying it was agreed and open, it does not follow. Jordan throwing the rock cannot be denied, he admitted it. Whether he could aim it with any degree of accuracy given the weight at its best be lost his head in this confrontation. At it’s worst it could show a very hostile intent. Just think this through in the context of a joint enterprise stabbing. Each knows that one or more of them is going to stab the victim. If Jordan knows the victim does not stand a chance why does he feel the need to pick up this piece of paving slab and hurl it towards the deceased, it does not fit with the intent that he knew with confidence that Kevin Johnson was an unarmed man against weapons. Either he would do nothing or he would pull out his knife and join in, neither of those did he do, clearly what he did was confirmed by Marsha Newby and admitted during the interview. Another important aspect of this event is this, if Dean Curtis says that the rock throwing by Jordan was at the time when Dean was being wrestled by Kevin Johnson in a way that transferred Kevin’s blood to Dean’s tracksuit and on the evidence of Marsha Newby she says it happened later in time. She describes it as when Kevin retreated to get back and did get to the low wall where he died. On either analysis it happened at a late stage at a point after Kevin sustained the fatal wound. That being so it is of course subject to the overriding direction of law, that being so that cannot of caused or contributed to Kevin Johnson’s death, whether in joint attack or not and cannot render him guilty of murder or manslaughter because the cause of death had already occurred. That is a very very important point, possibly the most important in Jordan’s case.

Now there were other offences committed, he probably quite accurately admitted being guilty of affray and possession of an offensive weapon but those offences are not on the indictment. They are not charged and there is no way you can try him at all. Jordan Towers is not guilty of murder, manslaughter or wounding with intent. That brings me to Jordan’s possession of this knife. Young boys and girls carry knives. The media call this the knife culture. This is explained by them that they will have front, it is totally naïve, it doesn’t take into account, as Dr Cooper tells you, how little force my be required to drive the knife into the chest cavity they do not consider if the knives be turned on themselves, but they do it and one hopes they stop, campaigns are going strong and taking effect. But prosecution cannot prove this case by simply showing that one, more or all carried knives. Carrying a knife is one thing and using it is another and even knowing your mates may be carrying knives does not alter anything. The crown has the responsibility to show Jordan Towers joined the others in attacking Kevin Johnson knowing or realising that one or more of the others had murderous intent, that is death or really serious injury, that is a very long way from carrying a knife. Whatever else you think you must do justice on the evidence against each defendant. Participating, knowing what the others were doing, having the intent and knowledge of the others and the fact you must consider each of the attacks of Kevin and Jamie, you can consider the attacks were stealthy, secret and underhand, and this is important when you consider the case against Jordan Towers.

The only piece of evidence that the open possession of a knife was apparent to another comes form Dean Curtis saying that Tony was slashing car tyres, then if he is doing this they must be carrying a knife. You will remember Mr Bloomfield’s comments that you only have Dean Curtis’ word for that, it is a surprise that there is no evidence to confirm this. Putting the point more simply, it would not be fair that to much reliance be put on Dean’s attack of Tony.

I promised I would return as to why you should not draw adverse inferences from Jordan not talking. The first is that the prosecution must prove it’s case, it is not the liability of the defendant to prove his innocence. Of course in his evidence he accepted he had thrown the rock, he had had the preliminary conversation with Jamie Thompson and been to the garage. You have not heard many questions from me, that is not because I am idle it is because there have not been many of issues of fact that I needed to deal with. In his interview he steadfastly denies to name his ‘accomplice’ even when the police are telling him their names. That was his position then in interview but his position now is much more difficult. Tony Hawkes blames Dean Curtis, Dean Curtis blames Tony Hawkes. Tony accepts that he stabbed Jamie Thompson at the behest of being passed the weapon from Dean, Jordan is clearly caught in the crossfire and holds the ring in some respects between his co-accused. He is inevitably under pressure from the other two. Of course he is 16, they are all in prison together and the family’s are associated. He knows for certain one of them is a killer and one of them put a knife in the chest. He’s got two co-defendants of which he is required to give evidence. Mr Woodcock suggested a number of questions he would ask Jordan Towers, I could envisage a large number of questions that would have been asked about Dean Curtis and Tony Hawkes, what would have been his position, a dangerous position if he jointed the debate of who did what. He is only 16, that gives us a significant degree of responsibility, I hope we have discharged that responsibility. You will see that he has not given evidence on what he has been advised. The fact he is so young will increase your anxiety. I will not do that which Mr Woodcock predicated but you have to consider the case for and against Jordan Towers, give allowances for his youth, he may have street knowledge but nothing else. You must be fair and that is a basic commodity in this case, and be fair about the fact that he has not given evidence. The crown’s case is inadequate and I submit for the alternatives as well as the main charges, are you sure of his guilt? Honestly?