Judge in Stephen Tompkinson assault trial warns jury to 'put emotions aside'
The judge in the Stephen Tompkinson's assault case today warned the jury to put aside emotions before retiring to consider its verdict.
The DCI Banks star, 57, said that members of the jury hold his future career in their hands as he faces a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Karl Poole, 48, in a 5.30am confrontation outside his home two years ago.
Poole and his pal Andrew Hall were said to be in a drunken state lying on the pavement outside the property in Whitley Bay, North Tyneside, with Poole dressed only in his underpants and socks after a dawn dip in the North Sea.
Actor Stephen Tompkinson arrives at Newcastle Crown Court for the final day of his trial (Andy Commins / Daily Mirror)Judge Paul Sloan, Recorder of Newcastle, said: "This case may well give rise to a state of feelings and emotions and perhaps anger and indignation because of the state of Mr Poole and Mr Hall on the morning in question.
"Perhaps you have sympathy for Mr Poole or for the defendant himself because of the predicament he finds himself in having to deal with two drunks outside his house early that Sunday morning.
Actor Stephen Tompkinson arrives at court to stand trial over GBH allegations
"Such feelings and emotions do not assist now in deciding the case and must play no part in any discussion as to whether the allegation made in this particular case has been proven."
The defence case ended yesterday with a series of personal witness statements on behalf of the star. They came from actors, directors and TV execs. All 10 praised him, saying how calm he was under pressure.
Tompkinson took to the witness box to deny assault causing grievous bodily harm, and said it would be 'career suicide' for him.
He told the jury that he had not worked because the case had been 'hanging over him'.
The actor was arrested by police on May 30, 2021, the day that he allegedly punched Mr Poole.
Tompkinson said the future of his career was in the hands of the jury (Andy Commins / Daily Mirror)
The actor (right) has been on trial at Newcastle Crown Court (Andy Commins / Daily Mirror)He later told officers that he acted in self defence against Mr Poole, who suffered 'traumatic brain injuries' after falling to the ground and cracking his head.
His bid to keep Mr Poole away from him could have looked like a 'haymaker punch', but 'his intention was not to hurt', he told the court.
Neighbour Caroline Davidson told the jury that she had watched from her bedroom window around 100m away as the star 'slapped the gentleman without the top who was just in his boxer shorts, with his right hand and then he punched him to the head with his left'.
Prosecutor Michael Bunch warned the jury that the actor may have been 'playing a part' in his evidence before the court.
He added: "He has elaborated on his story as time has gone on - he has given details which were not given earlier."
TV detective 'left drunk man with brain injuries after noise row punch'
He said that the actor had filmed the two men on his mobile phone instead of trying to help them.
He went on: "It was utterly callous to just stand and watch and film. Those actions truly show the man at the centre of this case.
Karl Poole has given evidence during the trial (Andy Commins / Daily Mirror)"He said it was total self indulgence by grown up men who should be behaving better.
"Did he really go out there to help them on their way as they struggled to get to their feet?
"The reality is that he was enraged by their actions and he acted to get rid of them."
Nicholas Lumley, KC, defending, said the scientific evidence showed that the injuries to Karl Poole were consistent with him being pushed, rather than punched.
Mr Lumley told the jury that there were no injuries to Mr Poole's face which would have been caused by a punch.
"There are common sense observations - a push could cause a drunken man to fall, of course it would," he said.
A court sketch of Stephen Tompkinson taking the stand at Newcastle Crown Court (PA)"He did not attempt to break his fall because of the state he was in. That is why Mr Tompkinson said it was not his doing.
"It is another way of saying I did not fill him in drink, I did not bring him to my door, I suddenly thought it was going to get ugly - it would not have led to a hospital trip if they were not as they were.
"The head injury was a completely unintended consequence of Stephen Tompkinson defending his property. That is the fair application of a fair law - of course a person can defend themselves and their property within reason.
"So long as we are reasonable, we can act to protect ourselves. What had he to gain from doing this vindictively? He had everything to lose. There may be hell raisers in show business, people who trade on it, but not him.
Stephen Tompkinson at Newcastle Crown Court yesterday (Andy Commins / Daily Mirror)"He has served a profession he loves, from gently bewildered priest of the 1990s to the present day, an actor sought out because of his calmness, that opinion of him went entirely unchallenged, and yet the prosecution seeks to say now, he must have lost his temper.
"What possible motive would he have to throw his reputation for that pair? He has never conducted himself in the way the prosecution alleges in 57 years. He is acting royalty. We suggest whatever he did, he did in self defence, no more than any of us would have done.
"They were the unintended consequences of a rapid coming together of a sober and a drunk and that does not make Stephen Tompkinson a criminal.
"It is what makes him innocent."
The jury is expected to retire to consider their verdict this afternoon.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
