MY CASE (3)

So the Prosecution call 3 witnesses: two who saw what happened plus the headmaster who saw bugger all.

However, P had to first deal with a problem: the Crown tried to bring in a witness statement from a teacher saying that our Teacher had roughed up kids before. So this was an issue for the Judge as P reckoned that this was “bad character” evidence by the back door. None of it was proven, he was never charged and in any case it was total bollocks. So we had more legal argument.

The Judge refused to allow it on the basis that it was utter krap – He didn’t quite use those words but I know that he was itching to.

First witness for the Crown

He says he saw our Teacher lift the boy up by his shoulders and throw him 15 feet onto his back – just outside the classroom.

He says he saw our teacher run up to the boy as he was lying on the floor in a foetal position and go as if to kick him. The teacher had a very angry expression when he did this.

So – he gets in the witness box.

I could tell that he was old school and arrogant – obviously didn’t like our teacher and more importantly didn’t like Mr Pineapples.

Mr P has a bit of a London accent – a bit of a cockney – born within the sound of Bow Bells.

He’s thinking: who the bloody hell is this so-called barrister?
He’s not one of us – no public education - no Eton, Harrow or Oxbridge;
He’s a barrister by dint of primitive animal cunning;
Sponsored through Bar school by the Kray Twins or Mad Frankie Frazer.

So – I lay the accent on a bit thicker – he gets prickly – and defensive.

I suggest that his witness statement is full of errors, wrong and incomplete – which he denies and with a sad shake of his head assures the court that his statement is 100% accurate.

This is GREAT – because P has noticed a typing error: instead of saying he was 20 yards from the scene – the statement says – 200 yards from the scene. This must mean he was standing as far away as the school car park.

This is impossible.

But he wasn’t prepared to admit an error to this cockney wide-boy and when I read the statement he did not correct the 200 yards cock-up – he had dug himself self into a hole and wasn’t prepared to eat humble pie to get out.

So far so good.

Hurling the boy through the air

He then assures us that the boy was picked up and hurled backwards through the air (his words) – so P says that the boy is 5’ 5” and 10 ½ stone – the teacher is 5’ 8” and 11 stone. Strangely the boy was gripped by his shoulders.

“Were you surprised by this Herculean feat of strength?”

“No – not at all” he says.

I could see that the jury were.

“Any injuries to the back of his head?”

“No”

“Bit surprising?”

“No, not really”


The pretend kick

“The boy was in a foetal position and wouldn’t have seen the kick?”

“Oh he saw it alright”

"But the boy had his hands over his head in a foetal position?"

"He could see alright."

“How do you know?”

“He must have”

“But you were 200 yards away weren’t you and not close enough to see anything?”

“I could see what was going on”

“He wasn’t kicked was he?”

“No”

“So all of this is irrelevant isn’t it?

SILENCE


The Angry Face

“Would you be angry if you’d been called “wanker” “c***” and “fudge packer”.

“No”

“Kicked in the testicles and punched in the face?”

“No”

“Why not?”

“I am a better teacher – we can’t allow ourselves to get upset by these things.”

“Perhaps a tad inconvenienced?”

“No”


This was the Crown's Star Witness.