The prosecution finished its case by urging the Youth Court to find all five teenaged defendants guilty – saying that the evidence pointed firmly and conclusively to them moving Morgan from the house where they had spent the night to a nearby road to throw the police off the scent of drugs and indecent images of children stashed in the house.
But the defence lawyers, in their concluding arguments, have told the court that there is nowhere near enough evidence to convict the boys – one lawyer said that the prosecution was a face-saving exercise by the police, designed to excuse their having arrested the boys on suspicion of murder.
After five days of evidence in court last week – including statements from witnesses, footage from body-worn cameras, and testimony and cross-examination of two defendants – both sides finally summed up their cases yesterday morning.
Advocate Howard Sharp QC, the former Solicitor General who has prosecuted the case, said that the defence’s explanation that they moved Morgan to avoid getting in trouble with their parents was not plausible.
He said: “There is only one issue in the case. why did they move Morgan from the garage, unconscious and in need of an ambulance, all the way to [another road]. The Crown’s case is that this was done to conceal from the police…
“Ultimately, this was done to protect [the first defendant] from the police. If the court accepts that analysis, then such conduct amounts to perverting the course of justice.
We say that the evidence points firmly and conclusively in that direction.
“Slick and intelligently presented but consisting of a series of untenable and implausible stories that are inconsistent with the other evidence in the case.
[The defendant] a rather calculated and callous attitude. And that attitude was very much present on the morning of 5 July when all the defendants were there in the garage, and there was Morgan, unconscious on the floor.”
Advocate Michael Preston, responding for the first defendant, said that the Crown’s case did not stack up – pointing out that his client had ample opportunity to dispose of any drugs or indecent images left in the house.
He said: “[The defendants] have to prove nothing. It is plain having heard the evidence in this tragic case that you cannot be certain of guilt. The Crown’s theories and speculations as to what happened are not the evidence.
“It is plain that this case reflects badly on the police in Jersey. It was obvious that the charge of murder would never stuck from day one. Was [this prosecution] to save face on the part of the police? Well, only the police will know that.
“The thought of the police being involved entered into no-one’s heads until the police were involved. It was stupid. It was a decision made in circumstances of panic which are now being pored over several months later. They moved him away to sober him up and no-one would be the wiser. Was it sensible? No. Was it stupid? Yes. Was it an example of teenagers making bad choices, stupid choices? Yes indeed.”
