15/09/10….Lawyers battle for hearts and minds of jury in death crash trial

THE two opposing lawyers in the trial of a man charged with the death of Thame teenager, Greg Stiles by dangerous driving, have today been summing up.

The Prosecution’s case

The main points for the prosecution by Mr Neil Moore for the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service), included his asking the jury to contrast the the quality of the attitude and evidence of the “honest and public spirited” witnesses who came forward as a result of the police appeal, with that of the defendant’s brother, Terry Edwards. He, (Terry Edwards)said Mr Moore, appeared to have had vital evidence that could have potentially helped his younger brother, the defendant Sammy Edwards, but did not come forward.

Referring to Terry Edwards’ evidence in court yesterday, Mr Moore said of him, that, having “nailed his colours to the mast” by giving a time that he saw his younger brother in their father’s house on the morning of the collision: “…he (Terry Edwards) then broadened his timing, once he heard that his brother wasn’t in the house when he (Terry) said he had asked Sammy for a lift to Thame.”

“He just does not have the qualities of the other prosecution witnesses,” concluded Mr Moore.

He called the defendant, Sammy Edwards, “A weak and inadequate man in many ways,” and accused him of continually blaming others for his behaviour. Edwards, he said: “…blamed his father for telling him to lie about being in the car, his solicitor for telling him to answer “No comment” to all questions in subsequent statement to the police, and then an unknown ‘someone else’ for his answers of “no comment” in his Defence statement.

“Finally, he had the audacity to suggest that Greg Stiles was responsible for his own death, and the injuries to his girlfriend! It’s always someone else’s fault according to him.”

It is alleged that Sammy Edwards’ actions in overtaking three cars in the way that he did, forced Greg Stile’s car coming in the other direction, off the road and then to spin into the side of the second car, killing him.

Mr Moore added: “I invite you to conclude that the defendant’s driving fell far below that of a safe and competent driver. His immediate future, the importance to the public at large as well as to Greg Stiles’ family, demands that if you the jury are sure that it was this that caused this offence, it must be punished.”

The Defence case

The main points put to the jury by Defence barrister, Mr Ben Maguire included the submission that Sammy Edwards now accepted that he had lied to police in the first instance by denying that he was driving the blue BMW X5 on the morning of the collision, and suggested that “lies do not always mean guilt.”

“The defendant,” said Mr Maguire, has not been dealt much in the way of brains and is therefore susceptible to appalling advice such as that given by his father.”

“It had been suggested to him that the investigation might have taken on the appearance of some sort of ‘witch hunt’ which made him feel that the investigation might not be totally fair. Then having lied, he felt trapped by that lie,” suggested Mr Maguire. “He is telling the truth now,” concluded Mr Maguire.

Mr Maguire told the jury that they could not be certain about some of the assertions made by the Prosecution that they, the jury could “be sure of.”

He referred in particular to a conflict of evidence about the colour of the vehicle involved in the road-rage incident reported after the collision. Some witnesses had, he said, described a vehicle of a different colour and type to that of the blue BMW X5.

He asserted that there were differences in witness accounts of whether and when they could see Greg Stiles’ car coming towards them, and whether or not Sammy Edwards was seen to drive his car over into the on-coming carriageway before the collision.

Mr Maguire also urged the jury to consider the evidence of an off-duty police officer, who said that he saw the blue BMW 5X in Stoke Mandeville six and a half minutes before CCTV showed it to be in the Eden Centre car park, 17 miles away – a journy, he suggested, would have taken at least 25 minutes.

He also asked the jury to consider, what he called, “the understandable pressure on the police, the witnesses and the jury when someone has died, to want to apportion blame,” and urged them to reach their verdict “based on cold impartiality based on the facts.”

Mr Maguire concluded: “We invite you to conclude that the Prosecution has failed to make you sure that Sammy Edwards was guilty of dangerous driving; that you conclude that you cannot be sure about many things you have been asked to be sure about.”

The jury is expected to retire to consider its verdict tomorrow, Thursday, once the judge, Mary Jane Mowatt, has completed her summing up.

PHOTO: Courtesy of GetReading.co.uk