#13554 - Closing Speech - BPC Criminal Advocacy

CLOSING SPEECH

DEFENCE COUNSEL
KEVIN HIGGINS

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, It is now for me to address you on behalf of the defendant, Mr Kevin Higgins.

Much of the evidence concerning the events of the 10th December is in dispute and it is your function to decide who you believe.

There is no dispute that a white envelope containing 20 ecstasy tablets was found in the car.

The issue for you, is to decide whether the Defendant had knowledge that he was in possession of the envelope.

As ever, it is not for the Defendant to prove his innocence, it is for the Prosecution to prove his guilt.

And the Prosecution has to make you sure of his guilt before you can convict, as his Honour will direct you in due course.

Mr Higgins doesn’t have to prove that he did not have knowledge that he was in possession of ecstasy ,

It is for the prosecution to make you sure the Defendant had knowledge of possession.

Put another way, to convict Kevin Higgins, you must be sure, beyond any reasonable doubt that he did have knowledge of the envelope at the back of his car.

Whether the Defendant had knowledge in all the circumstances is a matter for you.

There are certain instances where it is clear to prove knowledge, for example when someone carries drugs on his jacket, or pocket.

But in between there are vast areas of grey, and that is what you are here to decide.

Kevin Higgins is a man aged 25 years, with a steady job as a mortgage clerk.

He is a man of impeccable character, with no convictions recorded against him, yet he stands charged with an offence of drug possession with intent to supply, that is quite out of character.

His good character does not avail him of a defence, but as his Honour will direct you it is something that you will put into the balance and to which you will give importance as it demonstrates that both he is a man worthy of belief and that he is a man unlikely to have acted in the way alleged.

You ve had the opportunity of both seeing and hearing the Defendant and Co-defendant in this case in the witness box.

It is no coincidence that the witness box faces you.

It allows you the opportunity not only to assess what the witnesses have to say but also how they say it.

Having heard and seen the Defendant in this case, can you honestly rule out his version of events that night?

Compare Kevin Higgins with Natasha Flynn.

The one is a man of impecable character and the other is a woman who plainly you may think likes to do drugs, why otherwise be convicted of a drug possession offence.
Natasha Flynn has a proven propensity to commit offences relating to drugs.

And His Honour will direct you that you can be assisted by that when considering whether she was the one who put the drugs in the back seat of the car.

Bear in mind what has been alleged by Natasha Flynn.

She supposedly suspected that Kevin Higgins stopped outside the Hare and Billet to get some drugs.

That he probably stopped to by drugs ladies and gentlemen, a man who kept arguing with his girlfriend because she was taking drugs.

A man who doesn’t get on with Natasha’s friends...