Prosecution closing speech – Members of the jury it is I trust obvious to you now that the evidence stage of this trial is at an end. You have heard in various forms all the evidence that you are going to hear and as counsel always hope we like to think that all the questions that need to be asked have been asked because no further question of any witness is possible any more. Though it may well be that in due course when you retire you have questions, it is well to remember that if there is an answer it can only be answered by reference to the evidence you have already heard. It is my task now on behalf of the prosecution to review with you how it is on the evidence that you have heard that they are one by one guilty of murder.

You will recall that when on the 08.10.07 you were selected and sworn, you were informed that the nature of the case was one that was capable of arousing understandable emotion. In your analysis of the evidence, so to you analysis must be clinical and without emotion because of course nobody can listen to evidence of this type without realising that in this case though there is one over whelming tragedy, it is one met with tragedy all over. From Kevin Johnson to the obvious sadness that 3 young men are facing allegations of murder, that is itself horrific. But when you analyse the evidence all of the submissions you will hear and the review of the evidence that will have directions of law that you must please follow, you will have to put aside the prejudice any emotion that might underline the case itself, for no other reason other than it is the most unreliable type. It is underpinned by the constant reference to and the use of, the crown say wickedly, of knives. You will have paid attention over recent years, a lot of governments saying they will stamp down on knife culture. You will wonder now whether this has been done when these 3 defendants need only go into their mothers kitchen and take a kitchen knife to prowl around the streets at Sunderland at night.

What you have seen unfold before you as the Crown has presented the case, you can and must find the defendants guilty. What you have seen unfold is that these three men are now faced with the evidence fighting amongst themselves to the bitter end. A lot of what you have heard is of course, in the fight amongst themselves, are words spoken in one interview by one defendant against another who was not present when that interview was taken place. You will be directed that what is said in interview by the police is not evidence against another person. But if during the course of the trial the defendant who says something in interview repeats the same statement under oath it becomes evidence against the individual. Your task is to now sift through the evidence you have heard, decide what is important and what is not and then resolve the issues that have arisen. But only if you are sure of the fact should you rely on it to prove the case against the defendants.

The case is murder and section 18 assault. Additional counts have been added that being manslaughter and unlawful wounding. They are alternatives to and not additional to the counts already in existence. It is still the Crown’s case that these men have committed murder of Kevin Johnson and the section 18 stabbing of Jamie Thompson. They have say the Crown, and I submit it is proved, have acted in concert with one another and with a shared intent. For it does not matter that each of the three accused are proved not to have done the same as the others. These three defendants are within a shred of intent of what they did as they take separate rolls. You will have to take with care what the evidence actually proves. The prosecution states that the defendants intended really serious harm and they each knew the others were armed and armed with knives. And that they knew they would or might use those weapons in the course of the attack upon Kevin Johnson. They are then guilty of murder. It is not as I began several days ago now, necessary for the prosecution to prove that anyone of the defendants intended to kill Kevin Johnson. Though of course it may be that you decide he did. If that is your finding and you are sure of it then that person is guilty of murder. The reality is that the defendants were intending to cause him really serious harm and the use of the knives could only have carried with it one intention and that is of really serious harm, and so you must find the defendants guilty of murder.

So then let us look at how the prosecution say these defendants are guilty in this way, bearing in mind my words, submission’s, and the Crown’s position are not evidence. So where do we begin, well Kevin and AB coming home from a night out in the pub and are preparing for bed. There appears to have been some larking about with Kevin teasing AB about a bag of crisps. In those moments as they are preparing for bed, three young men having met earlier on and having gathered for themselves a quantity of alcohol and as we have heard taken some cannabis, have entered on the estate where Kevin Johnson lives. Their neighbour being Marsha Newby. As they make their way onto the Pennywell Estate it is proven beyond doubt that three of these young men is armed with a weapon. At the very least Tony Hawkes has a screwdriver, or so he says. At the very least Jordan Towers has an extremely unpleasant kitchen knife, and at the very least Dean Curtis, whether he likes it or not, has a similar weapon. Of course the defendants do not all agree but there can be no doubt whatsoever and doing your best to avoid the various scraps between the defendants, by that time they all knew that each of them was armed. Dean Curtis has told you so that you don’t have to have any doubt about this, in the recent past he has himself been the victim of a knife attack. He has told you that as a result of it he carried a knife, he says he doesn’t always but that doesn’t matter because of the night in question he was. It is inconceivable that Jordan Towers did not know that. It is inconceivable that Dean did not know that Jordan had a knife. I submit that having met up and walked to the Pennywell estate Tony Hawkes did also know that the other two were armed. As they walked down Partick Road and almost certainly as Kevin and AB were sqaubbling about a bag of crisps, there is this incident when someone slashes the tyres of a motor car on Partick Road. They are in high spirits, giving the service of the drink doctor and a quantity of cannabis. They’re noisy and boisterous, this is heard by Kevin and he was annoyed by this. Worse when he saw they or one of them had spotted him and had the nerve to confront him. And so bad tempered words were exchanged. Kevin telling them to clear off, do they, no they don’t. At least one of them stands his ground and gives a load of abuse to Kevin as a result of which Kevin comes out of his house and stands at his gate. By this times Marsha Newby has become concerned. She of course lives next door and though attempts have been made that she was affected by the drink, you would think and can find, she was the most concerned witness, and frightened. Frightened to what was unfolding before her eyes to a respected neighbour who comes out of his house and tells them to disappear. But they had other forms of encouragement and they had no reason to leave. They each knew that Kevin was not armed with anything other than annoyance at their rudeness, aggression. In the case of Jordan Towers that unpleasant silver kitchen knife, Dean Curtis had a similar unpleasant weapon and so too Tony had a screwdriver. They had no need to clear off and let Kevin go back to his house because they had not reason to have no courage. So what did Marsha see. According to her she saw beckoning and saw a willingness to fight them one onto one but not three of them. Whatever you think of this it is not I submit something you should or could hold against him other that an error of judgement. The defendants knew that if it got out of hand they could not have possibly lost. How, because they were armed and each knew the other was armed. And so Kevin approaches and there a little distance from his house, Marsha Newby now moving to another window, she saw them in a semi circle around Kevin Johnson. She did not see a welcoming committee of welcomeness but instead repeated aggression. You did not see either of them backing off or trying to convince the others to back off and leave it, they all stay together. From that moment if not before the jeopardy that Kevin Johnson is facing is increasing and on display. What she then sees is the motion of one them towards Kevin, it is that left handed, back hand, repeated motion towards him.

The prosecution say that this is the clearest evidence of a knife being on display. Whoever it was who was holding the knife, and it does not matter which one it was, they were displaying it in the most aggressive manner in circumstances whereby it must have been abundantly clear to them all. If it was not, it was must have been whatever else developed, however the aggression increased, the use of the knife was not just a probability but also a racing certainty. What happened thereafter was fast moving and violent and relatively short in duration. The consequence of it was that  two of the defendants had been increasingly involved and those are surely Dean Curtis and Tony Hawkes with Jordan Towers standing off, the consequence of it was that whatever injury Kevin received he was not repeatedly stabbed but he was dying. Jordan Towers makes much of the fact that he was standing off and doubtless we submit that whatever went on had nothing to do with him. But this is not the truth at all, because Jordan had been in that initial encounter along with Dean and Tony, where you would not have got a cigarette paper between them, in moments when it was obvious to all three that a knife was on display and being used. And though two defendants joined together in the attack, it was an attack whereby in the concluding moments, Jordan Towers, having stood off picked up a very heavy piece of paving slab and hurled it at Kevin Johnson. That could not have been an accident, it could not have been a warning, that was the final act and was thrown at his head. It seems almost ridiculous to say it was unfortunate to not hit. But this act is the demonstration of the most hostile intent to man, Jordan knew he was highly likely to have already been assaulted in one of the most deadliest ways by Dean Curtis and Tony Hawkes.

One thing that seems to form the intention of each of these defendants is that they say they are not responsible for the fatal wound. Whether that arises from their failure to understand the principles upon which the prosecution rely, the fact is it does not matter. The deceased Kevin Johnson was not stabbed once, he was stabbed at least three times, maybe four. When you analyse each of the none fatal stabs each were inflicted with the intentions of causing Kevin Johnson really serious harm. Each of them serious wounds. It was made even more serious by the fact that each of them were inflicted via a violent struggle between all three and escalated to when all three were involved and filled with knowledge of what the others might have done. And that say the prosecution make all three guilty of murder. As Kevin Johnson was collapsing next to a wall with AB and Marsha doing best to wrap him in towels. Their attack had been in concert and at its conclusion they were proud. It may sound ridiculous to say it got worse but it did not get any better.

Instead of going home or going on a rampage individually these three young men stayed together. It may or may not be the case that Dean Curtis threw up as he says he did, he did not change his mind about who he was going to stay with. Whether or not Jordan Towers stood off it did not change his mind who he was going to stay with and the same observation for Tony Hawkes. They stayed together, it does not matter whether an underpass was used or not, it ends up in Chester Road. Their reaction was somewhat triumphant. Mr Liddle took exception that these three hoodlums attacked his van and for a moment or two they were being pursued. While they were squabbling between themselves the reality is they all knew they had been involved in a dreadful attack. Having someone hot on their heels was a potential disaster. They continued from there in the same callous and dangerous conduct that they had in Partick Road. Though the evidence shows Jamie Thompson may have been peddling drugs, although he says he was not, what matters is what happened. His account is evidence in part supported by some defendants, is that he was walking in one direction on one side of the road and on the other were the defendants. He ends up with a most unfortunate but far less serious injury to the chest. The significant part is the manner that he was stabbed and what lead up to it. One of the defendants, Jordan Towers, crossed the road. You may think that when you go to Partick Road this is not an unsignificant event. How does the incident with Kevin begin, one of them shouting at him after he told them to go away, an enticement began to get him to come out. So when Jordan Towers crosses the road there is, you would think, something of a hallmark or a stamp because it is not beginning to unfold again. He has then been joined by the other two and the resuly is that Jamie is stabbed. In moments when Kevin Johnson was killed, none of the three defendants has got rid of his weapon. Jamie Thompson did not stand a chance did he, it is by good fortune only that his injury was not more serious than it what it was, but then you would think that whoever stabbed him, and the evidence is clear that is Tony Hawkes, that he did so intending to cause serious harm. It is inconceivable that the other two did not foresee that serious injury would not occur. In those circumstance not only are they guilty of the murder of Kevin Johnson but also of the stabbing, of the unlawful wounding of Jamie Thompson.

While there is the theft of clothing, bicycles and whatever they got up to in between there is also the dreadful incident at the shell garage. This does not prove the stabbing of Kevin or Jamie but it does show, you may think, a state of mind of utmost hostility towards whoever they encountered that night. Fair enough the defendants would like to have cross examined Mr Shakire by reason of his inability to attend that has not been possible but his statement has been read to you. He is absolutely spot on in his recollections he has committed to paper, you may think. That not only was he subject to vile abuse, that Dean Curtis says was not as bad because of the re-enforced glass, give that what weight you will. He had Dean Curtis waving in front of him in the most threatening manner with a stanley knife. This brings us back to Partick Road because as the night then unfold or the earlier parts of the next morning there are these utterances to various individuals to this phrase Mr Stanley, or meet my mate stanley or meet stanley. You will have to decide when these words were first spoken, if at all. I would submit that they were spoken, it is proved so that you are sure already. The question is when were they first spoken. The prosecution submit this was at the time of Kevin Johnson’s killing. Why would I say that? Well firstly you will recall the way this part of the story emerged. Two defendants Dean and Tony descent upon a house when the occupants had taken more alcohol than you would want people of that age to take, but they heards chilling remarks, so chilling that at first they were not disposed to believe. In the words of one witness Dean Curtis was behaving like an arrogant knob, like someone of the arrogance always does. And this, you may think, has an enormous element of truth. Go back now to when Kevin was surrounded by that semi circle, it is not doubt when these awful words were uttered. Indeed there is evidence to support this isn’t there? This is what Tony Hawkes had to say to the police when he was bring interviewed. He said this is the solicitor presenting a statement to the interviewing officers. Dean had said he had a knife but he had not shown it. You also have the kiosk attendant saying he was told I’ll chop you up. So now members of the jury I hope you see that those words, they were not just a fantasy of witnesses who have spoken of hearing those words, they have their origin in the history of this matter in the seconds leading up to the killing of Kevin Johnson. And though Jordan Towers states he stood back, if you are satisified that those words were spoken and he did not withdraw, provided all the support that was necessary, though the prosecution say it is still possible that he plunged the knife into Kevin Johson. The prosecution say these words have the utmost significance to the stabbing of and killing of Kevin Johnson and to some extent the stabbing of Jamie Thompson.

You have heard from some but not all of these defendants. So far as Tony is concerned you have extracts of parts of the interviews that he had with police. You see the attitude he takes during the course of the interview with the police and you will see how he responded to questioning on oath. He is of course to some extent a liar. One confesses to his conduct. And one who if not slowly answered questions. His counsel criticised a co-accused about his change in story and did Dean’s counsel. That left out of his interview is a recent invention, that is a matter for you to decide. But you wuold thinl that being arrested and interviewed about the most serious matter, his willingness to given information to assist would be at their highest. He tells us but would not tell the police that it was after the killing of Kevin that he was then subject to all this teasing. If there had been the remotest amount of truth in that you would have thought he would have given it to police at the time.

Dean Curtis was also not forth coming with his willingness to provide the truth. You will use those facts as you see fit with drawing appropriate inferences from them. Jordan has of course not given evidence at all. That is not a fact that you could by itself convict him of anything but it is a fact that you may want to debate. You may want to decide amongst yourselves why? Albeit it, as Mr Nolan will suggest, he is a 16 year old boy choosing to stay out of the witness box. You will understand the prosecution bring these charges and it is we who has the burden of proving his case. He is quite entitled to you prove the case, as he has said during interview at the police station. But the law says that it is worth an answer and considering why on earth has Jordan Towers not shouldered the responsibility of giving evidence in this case, can we in anyway use that against him. It is true that he is the youngest, as Mr Nolan understandably announced that the position had been explained to him. What I am going to ask you to do is look at what Mr Towers has said. Not that I submit that any part, with the exeption that he was armed with a knife and threw a slab, in any way forms a confession. This 16 year old is not tongue tied little chicken sitting at the back afraid of his teacher. This 16 year old is an intelligent young man who is quite capable of holding his own arm and no less than the other two defendants who did go into the witness box. That Jordan Towers was just as capable of that as any of the others and you may think that Tony Hawkes, and think this from what Jordan has said to the police, and what Tony has said of Jordan is spot on, he is brighter than the two, capable of holding his own argument. From that conclude that his presence in this team, of nocturnal drunken thieves is a significant influence on the others. What is it that makes Dean, a 19 year old hang around with a 16 year old? What is it about Jordan Towers that makes their night a better night out than a night out without him? It may well me that Jordan is a useful member of this team, with a role to play, possibly helping in arguments, directing them what to do, even helping when events evolve. His reluctance to give evidence is no less than those who did. The reason he did not give evidence is that it has everything to do with the fact that he knew he would be asked questions that would not stand up to examination. What are those matters that scream out for evidence from Jordan Towers? Firstly did he know that Dean had a knife? Did he know Tony was armed? Is Jordan left handed? Is Jordan left handed or right handed? Did Jordan hear those words meet Mr Stanley? And questions of the same. Any answer he might have answered you are entitled to wonder why he did not. If you look at this particular passage. Page 5 of the transcripts on 20.05.07. He says he never stabbed him, he thinks its bad, but he does not feel he should help them. You can pressure is as much as you want you’ve got bob hope and nee hope of me telling you owt, I’m not think, I’m not stupid I nar what you’re trying to dee. Pausing there we like to think a jury trial is the fairest way to thrash out these matters. Sitting there as you do for you not only get to hear the evidence but to see it you can think alright Jordan Towers is only a 16 year old boy and we will make allowances for that fact. But here you have an intelligent, articulate young boy who whether he accepts it or not took part in this event and it cries out for an answer from him. At the bottom of page 6 dealing with Jordan’s vocabulary, he displays a remarkable understandin of the position he was in if only he had the courage to answer questions. So then there it is you will of course study the evidence you have heard with all of the care that is necessary.

You will of course remember those who heard the defendants talking about what they got up to during this night and that they were deeply troubled and expecting trouble from the police. They were wondering what they would say when this matter came on top to the police. There is that extraordinary conversation heard by EP between Tony and Dean. Those words are spoken between Dean and Tony and they relate to the escalation of the whole thing when they stood in that semi circle threatening Mr Stanley’s mayhem and so it is you who must analyse that evidence. You will ask yourselves that if these men are innocent and if Jordan had nothing to do with it why did he throw the knife in the first place if it hadn’t been used, we now know it is a silent witness. Jordan possessed it and had it in circumstances that resulted in the death of Kevin Johnson. It will of course be matter for you to decide. Not one but all three are guilty of murder and section 18 with intent.