The court starts just after ten. Bastow begins by questioning Drummond about Bradford Dean’s mobile phone, further trying to goad Drummond into either losing his temper or admitting he has one. Although Drummond remains calm, it’s too much for one of the observers in the public area.
“Stop this,” the young man shouts. “Can’t you see what he’s doing? He keeps asking the same dumb questions.” His voice is much louder than any other we’ve heard in court, although judge, barristers and witnesses use microphones.
“Get out of this court,” yells the judge, as Paul takes the man away.
“I have no further questions,” Bastow says.
Then Bradford Dean, Drummond’s childhood friend, takes the stand. He’s a credible witness, of good character, who robustly denies Bastow’s suggestion that he’s lying. The problem is, that although he knows he made arrangements to see Drummond that evening, he has no proof that they actually met. When Bastow asks what he did every other day that week, he can’t remember. The mystery of his mobile phone is solved, though. Under Miss Shah’s examination, it turns out that it stopped working a month ago but Dean didn’t tell anyone.
A group of young students are now sitting in the front bench of the public area. Paul brings them water to drink. They look relaxed, shiny even, compared with the rather strained-looking people sitting them behind them, most of whom have been here all week.
Wick remains silent, so it’s time for the summing up. Bastow says Goodman and Wick must have something to hide, because they haven’t taken the stand. Drummond on the other hand is confident, and therefore must be the confident leader of the attackers. (Miss Shah makes capital of this later, saying poor Drummond is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t). All three are violent, says Bastow. We should not doubt Hart’s evidence because he correctly identified Goodman, who admitted he was there. It was no coincidence that the other two men Hart identified, Drummond and Wick, also had a history of violence and knew each other and Goodman. “Fancy that,” Bastow says drily.
There’s short lunch break. The students have left by then, but I see them outside talking to the other observers and Lloyd Wick. Perhaps they’re friends.
After lunch, the defence counsel sum up. Smith, who has asked very few questions of the witnesses, gives the jury plenty of eye contact as he tells them they need to be sure to convict Goodman. And they can’t be. If they watch the CCTV footage, they won’t see Goodman hitting anyone. “Watch it again,” Smith urges. Although he was there, Goodman doesn’t have any distinguishing marks on his face, so couldn’t have been the man who tried to sell drugs to Dan Hart.
Miss Shah is worthy of an Oscar, looking wide-eyed at the jury. She starts by quoting Little Women on important words. She tells us we’ve heard the most important words all along from Drummond: ”I was not there.” The CCTV images could be any one of hundreds of men in the city with a similar physical appearance, mixed race youths around six feet tall. Merrick, who saw the man alleged to be Drummond at close quarters, didn’t identify him. While Hart did so, he hardly saw him and could be wrong. Most of his offences were many years ago, a long time for a young man of his age. We must take this seriously as we have the power to affect the course of his life. She hopes we’ll react to his courage and consistency and acquit him. She met him for the first time in September and it has been a privilege to know him, she says.
Miss Barry acknowledges her client is an unpleasant man, but says he wasn’t there, he didn’t do it, Dan Hart was too drunk and had too little time to identify him and the CCTV certainly doesn’t.
Then the judge begins his summing up. “I don’t see Mr Wick,” he says. “Where is he?”
All eyes turn to the dock, where only Goodman and Drummond are on view. Suddenly, Wick’s head pops up. He’d obviously been resting it on his hands. He’s so short that, unlike the others, he simply disappeared from sight.
Nobody laughs but I bet everyone wants to.
“I will firstly summarise the law for you, then the evidence,” the judge says. He explains the law on joint enterprise. If two or more people act together with the same purpose, it does not matter who did exactly what – they are all jointly guilty of the crimes committed as a result. The actions can be planned or can happen on the spur of the moment. It is the joint enterprise doctrine that means Goodman, Drummond and Wick are each charged with attacks on each of Brooks, Merrick and Richards.
He tells us that we should not take into account the defendants’ silence during their first police interviews, but we may do so in the post-identification parade police interviews if we believe the prosecution has a compelling case to answer. We may take silence in court into account in the same way. He points out that, however, Wick did answer questions when DC Hampson interviewed him. He and Goodman are perfectly entitled to decline to take the stand, effectively saying to the prosecution, “You prove my guilt.” The burden of proof at all times rests with the prosecution. He reminds us that Drummond had elected to give his account in court and has been cross-examined at length, as has his witness, Bradford Dean.
He directs us not to rely on the CCTV footage as proof of identity, but says we can use it in support of Hart’s identifications if we believe he is correct.
By now, it is 3.55pm. The judge dismisses the jury for the day, telling us he will summarise the evidence tomorrow.
My jury service took place a month ago. Read more about it here – I posted a blog every day this week:
Note – all names have been changed
