Leeds trial: Jury due to retire
The jury in the Leeds United soccer trial will be sent out tomorrow to consider its verdicts.
Mr Justice Poole told the seven men and four women (correct) he had completed his summing-up save for one or two minutes which he would finish tomorrow morning.
The judge today went through the allegations against England international Jonathan Woodgate, former England-U21 captain Lee Bowyer, defender Michael Duberry and two of Woodgate’s friends Paul Clifford and Neale Caveney.
He also outlined the defence cases that their clients were not involved in any of the offences put forward by the prosecution.
During the eight-week trial at Hull Crown Court there have been 60 witnesses giving evidence, including the three footballers.
The court has been told that Woodgate, Bowyer, Caveney and Clifford chased a group of Asians following a confrontation outside the Majestyk nightclub in Leeds city centre in January last year.
It has been alleged that they caught up with 20-year-old student Sarfraz Najeib in Mill Hill, where they kicked and punched him senseless.
Mr Najeib, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, suffered serious injuries in the attack including a broken nose and fractured leg.
The prosecution has alleged that after the attack, Woodgate returned to the unconscious Mr Najeib and launched a two-footed assault on him. The Crown also claim Clifford bit Mr Najeib on the right cheek.
The jury has been told that Woodgate, Clifford and Caveney, along with two other men, returned to Duberry’s house on the outskirts of Leeds. The prosecution claim that Duberry supplied Clifford and another man with a change of clothing to hide incriminating evidence.
Bowyer, 24, of Leeds, Woodgate, Clifford and Caveney, all 21 and from Middlesbrough, deny causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Mr Najeib. They also deny affray.
Duberry, 25, Woodgate, Clifford and Caveney all deny conspiracy to pervert the course of justice following the attack.
The jurors will take with them when they retire video footage from security cameras that has formed part of the prosecution’s evidence. The judge told the jury that it would be a matter for them what use they made of it.
But he warned them not to let the footage dominate their discussions.
He said: "Don’t let them swamp or over dominate your discussions. There is a great deal of evidence for you to consider. These are designed to help you."
