? Mr Justice Treacy sums up before jury considers verdicts
? Be sure evidence was not contaminated, jurors told
The jury in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial have been told they should acquit both defendants unless they are sure scientific evidence allegedly tying them to the murder scene was not the result of contamination.
In his summing up, the trial judge, Mr Justice Treacy, told the jury it was for the prosecution to prove that blood and fibres it claims were found on defendants' clothing came from their participation in the attack on Lawrence, in April 1993.
Gary Dobson, 36, and David Norris, 35, deny being at the scene of the murder, in Eltham, south-east London, 18 years ago. Their defence is that a spot of Lawrence's blood found on Dobson's jacket collar, and other material, were the result of evidence being poorly stored in paper bags over the last 18 years and becoming contaminated.
Lawrence, 18, died after suffering two stab wounds from a group of five white men who first shouted racist abuse at him and a friend.
Treacy told the jury that even if Dobson and Norris had not themselves stabbed Lawrence, they were guilty of murder if they were part of the attacking group and realised another member of it might stab Lawrence intending to kill or seriously wound him.
The judge said their mere presence at the scene or being friends with the attackers would not amount to evidence of guilt.
Treacy's summing up, at the Old Bailey in central London, is the final act of the trial before he sends the jury out to consider their verdicts. He warned the eight men and four women deciding the case to set aside any sympathy for Lawrence's parents, Doreen and Neville, who were in court to hear the summing up.
Treacy said: "Emotion such as sympathy for the Lawrence family has no part to play. Equally, anger at the nature of the attack on Stephen Lawrence cannot guide your decision."
The prosecution of Dobson and Norris followed the discovery of new forensic science evidence after a cold case review, the crown alleges.
The judge told the jury: "The prosecution say the new scientific evidence closely links both defendants with the fatal attack on Stephen Lawrence.
"They do not suggest the evidence can show that either of them wielded the knife. All this proceeds on the basis that you can be sure the new scientific evidence is reliable and free from contamination."
The crown has called scientists as expert witnesses to support its case. The judge told the jury that they had to assess all the evidence and were not bound by the testimony or opinion of experts. Treacy issued the 12 jury members with a document outlining the 11 steps they should follow to reach their verdicts. He agreed that it should be issued to the media.
In it the judge tells the jury it is for the crown to prove guilt and "each defendant's case must be considered separately, and separate verdicts returned".
The jury can reach three verdicts: guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.
Treacy then set out the difference between murder and manslaughter: "A person is guilty of murder if he unlawfully causes the death of another person and at the time intends either to kill or to cause the victim really serious bodily harm."
The judge said someone who did not wield the knife, but was part of the attacking group, was guilty of murder if he "at the time realises that another member of the group might stab the victim with the intention of killing him or causing really serious bodily harm".
The jury can only consider manslaughter if they have acquitted the defendant of the charge of murder, the judge wrote. A person is guilty of manslaughter if he unlawfully causes the death of another person and at the time intends to cause some harm falling short of really serious bodily harm, Treacy said.
In a passage marked by the judge as the jury's "route to verdict", he told them that they must first decide if blood and fibres found on clothing belonging to the accused did come from Lawrence, as the crown alleges. If so, can the jury exclude that contamination occurred? The central plank of the crown's case is the forensic evidence.
The judge told the jury they cannot consider secret video and audio recordings from 1994 of Dobson and Norris ? which were shown to the jury during the trial ? until they have ruled out contamination.
The jury were then told they must be sure that Dobson and/or Norris were "present and participating in an unlawful group attack on Stephen Lawrence which resulted in his death". It they are not sure on this point, they must acquit. If they are sure, they go on to decide if the defendants are guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Treacy told the jury: "It's not necessary for every question raised in a case to be answered or for every loose end to be tied up. This is real life, it's not a detective novel."
The judge will continue summing up on Thursday.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/28/stephen-lawrence-trial-judge-jury-verdict
Internet Savings Alexander Litvinenko Equality Family finances Gordon Brown
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento