Jury told to ignore 'guesswork' when deciding if 'caring dad' Daniel Hardcastle murdered boy, 2, in Blackpool
The jury in the trial of a father accused of killing his two-year-old son has been asked to ignore “theories” by eminent medical experts and focus solely on the facts.
A top lawyer defending Daniel Hardcastle insisted there was no evidence his client had inflicted a catalogue of injuries on toddler Damion Russell in what the prosecution claim was a prolonged case of cruelty and neglect.
Instead, said John Jones KC, the 31-year-old was a loving and caring single father who looked after his little boy to the best of his ability – something a string of witnesses from the childcare sector had testified to in court.
During the trial, now in its fourth week, Hardcastle has strenuously denied harming the toddler who was said to have balance and walking issues which caused him to fall numerous times a day.
Damion died two days after suffering a catastrophic head injury in the living room of the flat he shared with his dad in Central Drive, Blackpool.
According to a Home Office pathologist the cause of death was blunt force trauma caused by either a head impact or forceful shaking – or both.
Hardcastle claimed he had seen his son trip and fall, hitting his head on a coffee table.
The prosecution suggested the head trauma was just the latest in a string of injuries suffered by the little boy over a long period. But Hardcastle’s defence counsel claimed the experts’ views were “just theories,” not backed up by fact.
“What is the definition of a theory?” Mr Jones asked the jury in his closing speech. “A theory is an idea, or a set of ideas which are intended to explain facts and events.
“These experts were not there. They gave (their) opinion to explain facts and events as to what could have happened. That’s as far as they go.
“That is the danger of this. You have to be satisfied so you are sure that Damion died because his father killed him. That’s it.
“If you are sure of that you will find him guilty and properly so. Your duty is to give a true verdict according to the evidence and it is not sheer guesswork or speculation.”
Referring to the famous case of Baby P – the death of 17-month old Peter Connolly in London in 2007 after months of cruelty inflicted by those who were meant to be caring for him – Mr Jones said: “You will have come across cases where there is serial cruelty, neglect and maltreatment of children.
“Children who have been neglected all their lives, maltreated all their lives, for instance Baby P. This is not that sort of case.
“This case is about something that happened on the 19th of August last year, catastrophic in its consequences, of that there is no doubt. Tragic, of that there is no doubt.”
Mr Jones said there had been evidence from three different groups: Experts, police officers and “those who knew Damion and saw the defendant and the boy together.
“The police officers came in after, the experts came in well after the event. But the evidence of what Daniel Hardcastle and Damion were like (together) at the time is evidence which the experts have ignored, either because it was not relevant or not consistent with their theories.”
The lawyer related evidence from a host of witnesses who had told the court that they had never had the slightest concern about Hardcastle’s behaviour as a father or his ability to look after his child.
Some had confirmed the little boy had been unsteady on his feet and had seen him fall on “numerous occasions.”
One nursery worker said: “It was obviously a loving relationship.” Hardcastle, she said, had been “a very caring dad who only wanted the best for Damion.” The toddler had been “well cared for, always well dressed and clean.” And she added: “He was doing his best.”
And the court had been shown video footage of Hardcastle arriving at nursery to pick up his son and the little boy reaching out his arms to greet his dad. That was, Mr Jones said, evidence that their relationship “was based on mutual affection and love.”
He added: “That is all the evidence we have in this case. They are experts in their own right. They may not have degrees or doctorates to their name, but they are experts in looking after vulnerable children.
“If anything was wrong can you imagine how quickly they would have reacted?
“This was a man who was warming to the task (of caring for his son), who was able to discharge that task and was loving the task.
“No-one could say Daniel Hardcastle was perfect. He wasn’t. There were shortcomings, of that there is no doubt.
“But it is impossible he could have misled them (childcare workers), he could not possibly have done that.”
No-one could say Daniel Hardcastle was perfect. He wasn’t. There were shortcomings, of that there is no doubt.
Mr Jones said the prosecution case, based on medical evidence, was that the boy had suffered “several injuries caused over several days, repeated assaults upon Damion, deliberately to hurt the child with the intention of causing serious injury, not just neglect.”
He concluded the prosecution had sought to show that Hardcastle had “deliberately, intentionally and wilfully” inflicted injury and pain on his son.
Yet there had not been a single person in the case who had spoken about bad behaviour by Hardcastle which could have harmed the boy. “On the contrary, he was a good father who was doing his best in trying to bring up his son.
“Let us therefore abandon theories, let us concentrate on the evidence. The prosecution say the defendant is guilty of murder, the deliberate inflicting of injuries with intent to cause death or really serious harm.
“Daniel Hardcastle says it was a catastrophic incident, but it occurred by accident.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, if it doesn’t fit the evidence it’s wrong.
“(Some of) the evidence may put the defendant in a bad light, it may show there are certain things which were wrong (at the home) in Central Drive. But it doesn’t prove that he is a killer.”
Trial judge The Honourable Mrs Justice King is expected to send the jury out on Tuesday to consider its verdict.