‘Unreliable' witnesses in knifing trial: claim
A MAN involved in a pub car park scrap where two men were knifed after a funeral will have to wait to find out his fate.
It comes as jurors at Portsmouth Crown Court were pushed to enter not guilty pleas due to ‘unreliable’ witnesses when they start their deliberations on Monday to decide if Sammy Philpott, 37, is guilty of six offences.
The defendant claims he used self-defence when he sunk a knife into 6ft 7in Moneyfields centre-back Stanlie Hopkins and the footballer’s brother-in-law Daniel Forster.
Philpott, of Eastern Road, Portsmouth, told the court he was ‘protecting’ himself and feeling ‘scared’ during a fight in the Red Lion pub car park in Cosham on October 25 that left all three in hospital.
Meanwhile prosecutor Helen Easterbrook said Philpott armed himself with a knife and a hammer before carrying out the attack.
In his closing speech, Hugh French, for the defence, poured cold water on witness accounts as he urged jurors to find Philpott innocent.
The barrister said their evidence was at odds with the CCTV footage played to the court and could not be relied upon.
He said Mr Hopkins had ‘incorrect recollections’ over his account he stood in the car park before Philpott came to him. ‘It was actually the other way round,’ Mr French said.
Mr French also cited how Mr Hopkins had denied ‘kicking Sammy into the car and attacking him’.
Referring to the witness accounts of Mr Hopkins, Mr Forster and Mr Forster’s partner, the lawyer said: ‘The mistakes and lack of reliability echo each other in several regards.’
He added: ‘The reality is their accounts are not reliable and were contaminated.’
Mr French then pointed the finger at the prosecution who he claimed had asked jurors to take a ‘leap of faith into the dark’ over backing the witnesses.
He said no medical evidence was put forward of Mr Hopkins claims his ‘face exploded’ in the attack.
The barrister also said the prosecution’s case that Philpott had brandished a knife before the football player kicked the defendant into the car was undermined. ‘Stanlie never said he saw (Philpott) go for a knife,’ he said.
‘The prosecution ran out of road and thought “how can we get home on this” when it was so clear Stanlie attacked (Philpott),’ he added.
Criticism was also levelled at the police over disclosure of a comment made by Mr Forster to the force in which he said of the defence’s case: ‘I can see where they are coming from with self-defence.’
Mr French said it was ‘very telling’ the comment was only disclosed to the defence on May 10.
He said there was ‘no preplanning’ of the incident on Philpott’s part before he was ‘prevented from leaving and kicked into the car and punched several times in the face’ after being ‘trapped’ and was ‘clearly outnumbered’.
Mr French added: ‘Stanlie launches a vicious assault which you can see in the evidence of (Philpott) being beaten up.
‘In the spur of the moment Mr Philpott defends himself and does no more than was reasonable.’
Philpott denies two counts of wounding with intent, two counts of unlawful wounding and two counts of possessing an offensive weapon.
(Proceeding)