Uncle and nephew Paul Rosser and Joshua Cullen deny murdering Joshua Norma
The proof in opposition to a person accused of homicide is “so weak he has no case to reply”, a courtroom has heard. Joshua Cullen’s barrister informed jurors that the prosecution desires them to “speculate and guess” to fill within the gaps in its personal poor case.
Joshua Norman suffered a deadly damage to the throat within the Hafod space of Swansea in September final 12 months. Regardless of the most effective efforts of passers-by and the emergency companies the 27-year-old couldn’t be saved and died on the scene. Uncle and nephew Paul Rosser and Joshua Cullen are collectively accused of murdering Mr Norman – a cost they each deny – and are on trial at Swansea Crown Courtroom.
It’s the prosecution case that after the defendants and Mr Norman had been pushed round Swansea on the morning of September 11 on the lookout for medicine an altercation developed between Mr Norman and Cullen in Higher Strand. It’s alleged that after the three males walked by way of the tunnel which results in Cwm Highway, 49-year-old Rosser smashed the glass cider bottle he was holding and used to stab Mr Norman within the throat whereas 32-year-old Cullen “assisted or inspired” him earlier than each males then walked off to Cullen’s flat in close by Griffith John Avenue “leaving Mr Norman to die within the gutter”.
It’s Rosser’s case that the damaged bottle got here into contact with Mr Norman’s neck after Mr Norman had “lunged” at him and grabbed the bottle off him. It’s Cullen’s case that he triggered no damage to Mr Norman.
In the course of the trial the jury has been proven CCTV proof of the actions of the three males within the hours and minutes earlier than the deadly incident and of the actions of the defendants within the moments after the incident. The deadly incident itself, which occurred on the tunnel which hyperlinks Cwm Highway and Higher Strand, was not caught on digital camera.
The jury has additionally heard proof from supply driver dropping off a parcel to a enterprise in Cwm Highway and from folks dwelling in Cwm Highway who noticed Rosser combating with one other man on the road round half an hour after the deadly incident and who heard a person shouting: “I’ve murdered my finest mate”.
The courtroom has additionally heard toxicology proof concerning the medicine discovered within the programs of the three males and concerning the defendants’ earlier convictions – Rosser has 45 earlier convictions for 215 offences together with wounding, assault occasioning precise bodily hurt, aggravated housebreaking, and theft whereas Cullen has earlier convictions for 2 robberies and for wounding.
Each defendants exercised their proper to not give proof within the trial however in his closing speech Cullen’s barrister Andrew Jones KC informed jurors he needed to deal with them to “present how misguided and baseless” the prosecution case in opposition to his consumer is. For the newest courtroom experiences signal as much as our crime publication
He informed the courtroom that on the idea of poor-quality CCTV of the events earlier than the incident after which CCTV and eyewitness accounts of the defendants after the incident the prosecution had drawn a “string of tenuous hyperlinks” after which invited the jury to “guess” solutions to fill within the gaps of their proof.
He stated there was no proof of precisely the place his consumer had been standing when the bottle had been damaged, no proof that he had recognized what was going to occur, and “not a shred of proof” of him helping or encouraging his uncle.
He informed jurors: “The case is completely circumstantial. We invite you to seek out the proof is so weak [Cullen] has no case to reply…. Mere presence will not be sufficient. The prosecution know that so they’re asking you to invest and guess. You’re being requested to guess in a homicide trial.”
The barrister stated a lot had been made by the prosecution of the truth that the defendant didn’t given proof from the witness field however he reminded jurors defendants wouldn’t have to show something and that the burden is completely on the prosecution to make them positive of guilt.
And he reminded jurors that his consumer had offered an announcement to police during which he detailed how Mr Norman had turn out to be aggressive within the automobile and headbutted and smashed one of many Audi’s home windows – an account supported by forensic and eyewitness proof – earlier than Mr Norman had assaulted him, threatened him, and tried to bully him in Higher Strand.
Mr Jones requested the jurors to be devoted to the oaths they’d taken and to look at the proof objectively and dispassionately and he informed them to not fall into the “prosecution entice” of constructing “spurious assumptions and guesses”. He invited the jury to seek out his consumer not responsible.
The courtroom has beforehand heard a closing speech from Allan Compton KC for the co-defendant Rosser. He informed jurors there have been “far too many items of the jigsaw lacking” for them to make certain of his consumer’s guilt. He stated the dying of Mr Norman was a “mindless and unhappy prevalence” and he stated the “relentless consumption” of drink and medicines had led to the dying of 1 man and to 2 others being within the dock of a crown courtroom dealing with a homicide cost.
He informed the jury: “Do not make the error of pondering that as a result of someone ended up lifeless it should have been a deliberate act versus silly, reckless behaviour pushed by what they’d been consuming and doing that day.”
The barrister stated his consumer, by his personal admission, had been on four-day “bender” of drink and medicines previous to the incident and stated Mr Norman had consumed “prodigious” quantities of alcohol and medicines – together with cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and pregabalin – and stated it was not unimaginable to foretell how the “poisonous mixture of drink and medicines” would have affected him.
He requested the jury to think about if it was attainable that when he noticed the damaged bottle within the defendant’s hand Mr Norman, in his “intoxicated and out-of-control state”, did the truth is make a “lunge” for the merchandise and “pull” it away from Rosser – as is Rosser’s case – which resulted within the bottle coming into contact along with his neck because it “arced backwards” in the direction of him. He instructed to the jury that it could discover the pathology proof, particularly of a slight downward monitor of the laceration to the throat possible brought on by “reasonable or much less power”, fitted along with his consumer’s model of occasions.
Paul David Rosser, of McRitchie Place, Gendros, Swansea, and Joshua Lee Cullen, of Griffith John Avenue, Dyfatty, Swansea, deny homicide and a lesser different of manslaughter.
The trial continues.
