Closing speech portfolio 3 Example PDF

Preview

Summary

Closing speech example portfolio 3...

Description

CLOSING SPEECH ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION May it please the court; members of the jury. You have seen the trial and you have heard the evidence. The incident that took place months ago is drawing to a close and it is time to provide a judgement. Your job, as members of the jury, is to reach a fair and just verdict. In the meantime, my learned friends and I will be reviewing the case by reminding you what the evidence suggests, whilst addressing the relevancy of the law in this case. This is subject to what His Honour says, in which it is ultimately for His Honour to assist you on the law by detailing and taking you through any issues of the law. Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the burden of proof lies with me to prove there is beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Essentially, you must be satisfied so that you are sure of Miss Ellis’ guilt. What this means, is that if you have any reasonable doubts as to the defendant’s guilt, you should pronounce the defendant not guilty. However, if you agree with me and do not doubt that the evidence shows the defendant’s guilt, I have proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and your job would be to return a guilty verdict. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me take you back to that afternoon on the 10 th of June. This is a date that Edward Pierce will never forget; he was viciously attacked- stabbed by a small knife, but that small knife created great injuries and painful memories. Who did this? Why did they cause such an injury? You will be familiar with the facts of the case by now, and from all of the evidence you have heard, it simply points to one answer: Ellis had intended to cause serious injury to Pierce. Members of the jury, I draw your attention to that key word, ‘intended’. I want you to hang on to that word- I will come back to it later on. But for now, let us reflect upon three points. First, it has been established during the trial that the first act of violence was a provocative act from Ellis, in which she storms over to Pierce, pushing him from behind then proceeding to shout at him as a result of her losing her temper after seeing him walk in with another woman. Second, Pierce is understandably concerned at this sudden public argument, and so he tries to defend himself by holding her arms down and persuading her to leave. Members of the

Module: Law 338 Advocacy

jury, I know what you might be thinking. You might be thinking, “was it necessary for him to physically remove Ellis himself?” But we have heard from Miss Lieberman, the staff member at the Priory pub, that there was an absence of security during the day, and even as a staff member, Lieberman was unsure of what to do. This led to the only option of Pierce personally trying to get Ellis to leave the pub- a human reaction in trying to remove the threat from a hostile environment. Third, we have heard from both Lieberman and Miss Sheikh that at this point, Ellis stamps on Pierce’s foot and is able to twist and break free from him. However, instead of removing herself from an already tense situation by simply leaving the premises, she decides to reach for the small knife behind the bar. Note that at this point she is already free from Pierce, but she is clearly seeking to continue this altercation by reaching for a weapon. Not only this, she then proceeds to wave the knife around before finally stabbing Mr Pierce in the arm. Ladies and gentlemen, what do these three points show? I bring you back to the word I asked you to keep in mind previously- intention. Ellis clearly had several opportunities to remove herself from a hostile environment- a hostile environment she created. Instead, it is shown that Ellis makes one bad decision after another, from instigating the fight, to grabbing the knife, which turns into waving the knife around and consequently stabbing Pierce. What is evident here, is the process leading up to the stabbing, and what does this process show? That there was the time, the thought process and opportunity for Ellis to form intent. I have placed a lot of emphasis on the word intent here, so what is the significance? Ellis is indicted of two offences of section 18 and section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the difference of these two offences is simply the question of accident versus intention, and it is your job as members of the jury, to decide whether it was simply an accident, or whether Ellis intended to cause grievous bodily harm. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this was clearly an act of intention; a suggestion that this crime was merely an accident is a ground that contradicts facts and evidence. Pierce did not simply push his arm into the knife like you have heard from Ellis, as he would have had to almost pounce onto the knife himself. The resulting injury of this crime led to the severing of a ligament requiring surgery, with serious implications of permanent damage. I therefore ask you to consider: which testimony makes more sense? That a man of sound mind would push himself into the knife with such intensity to cause extreme injury to oneself, or that a Page 2 of 3

Module: Law 338 Advocacy

combination of a loss of temper, jealousy and anger would ultimately lead to a determination to cause serious harm? Again, let us take a look at what the evidence shows. Firstly, every development of the altercation was initiated by Ellis. The most fundamental point to consider, however, was her opportunity to leave the premises after she was able to twist away from Pierce. However, she reaches into the side of the bar, grabs the knife and waves it around. Such actions cannot be likely unless she had intended to use the weapon. Secondly, notice how the sole evidence suggesting an accidental stabbing come from Ellis simply saying so herself, but Ellis certainly had the motivation to cause harm; this is a woman who is hurt by the supposed affair, and she intended to return that feeling back. Thirdly, cross-examination confirms that alcohol was not involved; neither parties were drinking or involved in any other substances which may reduce inhibitions. The mere fact that Ellis chooses to stay in the premises out of her own will, choosing to return and continue the fight by introducing a weapon, tells us that she was on a mission- she was fiercely determined to cause serious damage. Members of the jury, the series of events I have described to you illustrate the worst of human behaviour; how hateful feelings of jealously, anger and temper lead to the physical and mental suffering of another. Through such feelings of negativity, Ellis intended to injure Pierce so as to cause grievous bodily harm and I therefore submit the jury to consider returning a fair verdict to find Ellis guilty of the section 18 offence. Thank you.

Page 3 of 3...