Lincoln Crown Court jury set to deliberate on Tuesday in murder trial after Long Bennington man died following family feud fight
The jury in a murder trial is set to be sent away to deliberate in the morning.
The prosecution and defence teams for Terence Hardy and Stuart Gray senior concluded their cases at Lincoln Crown Court today.
Hardy, 35, denies the murder of Dean Gray, 46, but admits manslaughter. Hardy's father-in-law Stuart Gray senior denies manslaughter and possession of an offensive weapon.
Dean Gray died in hospital days after being repeatedly punched in a family feud fight at Fairfield Motors on Main Road, Long Bennington, on August 11 last year.
Mr Scamardella, prosecuting, told the jury that when Mr Gray walked into Grantham Hospital A&E after the incident, with blood pouring from his head, he did not know the life was draining from him.
"He had sustained a catastrophic head injury and a large bleed on his brain which began to swell under pressure, and his vital functions began to fail," the court heard.
"Nothing from his mouth could have led him to his killers. Mercifully for him, the whole incident on CCTV.
"Without it, Hardy's account may have seemed plausible. Much of what he said was undeniably true, but other parts were wrong and deliberately so. Perhaps the nastiest untruth of all is when he said he would never hit a man in front of his children — something CCTV has shown to be a deliberate lie to make police think this was a fight between two Traveller men."
Mr Scamardella said there were more lies when Stuart snr denied having a clawhammer, and his son Stuart jnr an axe, because witnesses could back it up.
He said: "The footage demonstrates how the two eye witnesses were telling the truth about what they saw, and how Hardy beat Dean time and time again as his hysterical children scurried around, cowering in the car.
"It shows how Stuart snr was aggressive and supportive of his son-in-law and did nothing. It shows how both lied to police when blissfully unaware CCTV would expose their bogus accounts.
"Hardy said he had been beset upon bad luck because on three occasions assaults on him were not captured on camera, all delivered at a time when behind a concrete pillar. It may take you little time at all to decide these suggestions are simply untrue."
The prosecution added while Hardy did not deserve what had happened to him in the incident prior to the fight — where he was hit with some kind of rod — that Hardy's only thought was to get revenge on Dean and his father Steven Gray.
"As he was leaving the site, it was Hardy's case that he was challenged to a fight from Dean — a challenge he says is impossible to refuse in Gypsy culture, to not be labelled a sh*thouse," said Mr Scamardella.
"But what possible need was there for Dean to challenge him to a fight? Dean had seen off Hardy from the land with his tail between his legs.
"If anyone was likely to offer a fight, it was Hardy — embarrassed and angry, he would be the one wanting to settle the score, as he is who lost out in this incident. Surely Dean would have fought and not let himself be thrown around like a rag doll.
"This was not Travellers settling scores, this was revenge."
Mr Selby, defending for Hardy, reminded the jury they were making a verdict based on evidence — not emotion.
"This was never meant to happen and, in truth, you may think that what killed Dean Gray was a freak accident," he told the court.
"Hardy at the age of 35, up until now, had no previous convictions, cautions, no reprimands — he is a hard-working family man, an honest man, a man brought up in the Gypsy culture, a Gypsy culture unfamiliar perhaps to you and I.
"For heaven's sake, Mr Scaramdella says the CCTV is the best evidence — are we watching the same footage? Because when Hardy attends the second incident, what happens? Dean's shirt comes off. What other possible explanation is there when a man removes his shirt?
"In Gypsy bare knuckle fights, the fight ends when one is 'best'. Mr Gray did not give best and was quite content to carry on.
"The crown know and know only too well there was no intention to kill. Hardy acknowledges he caused the death of Dean and knows he is responsible, but he wasn't responsible for murdering him.
"Why couldn't he have intended nothing more than getting the challenge over with and not being branded a coward?
"When you assess the evidence and the traditions of the Gypsy heritage, the only right verdict is one of not guilty."
Defending on behalf of Stuart snr, Mr Parr said the outcome could have been different had Steven not acted in the way he did.
He said: "Put yourself in Stuart's shoes, just imagine this dreadful situation — you go there hoping to settle the matter without violence, a fight kicks off, and someone tragically bangs his head on the concrete. It's beggar's belief.
"The camera never lies. When you look at the CCTV, he does not do anything to encourage that fight at all.
"On the other hand, we know Steven by his guilty plea that he actually accepts in respect of the first incident that he committed an act of violence [against Hardy].
"Steven was the catalyst for the event on August 11 last year, that man's bitterness unleashed the tragic nature of this incident.
"Despite telling you he only tapped him, he pleaded guilty that day and charged with common assault.
"It was Steven's own pigheadedness that led to the death of his own son — that's why he turned his back on his tradition and family. There is no love lost and he wants the full force of the law to land on Stuart.
"We ask you to return verdicts of not guilty on both counts."
