A police officer standing trial for GBH after punching a man while holding handcuffs has been found 'not guilty' by the jury after 30 minutes of deliberation.
Constable Karl McClean, whose address is given as Downpatrick Police Station, was on trial at Downpatrick Crown Court after being charged with grievous bodily harm following a Police Ombudsman Investigation into an incident at a property on Hunter's Way in the Co Down town on January 27, 2023.
He was accused of using "unlawful and unreasonable force" towards Patrick Russell by punching him in the face while holding handcuffs after police called at his home for a bail check. A previous court hearing heard that Mr Russell lost three teeth and suffered "significant" damage to his face following the incident.
On the third day of the trial, Ms Gilmore for the prosecution and Mr Turkington for the defence gave their closing arguments to the jury before they were sent off to make their decision.
Ms Gilmore asked the jury whether or not they "believe the defendant" following his testimony, highlighting inconsistencies in McCleans original police statement and interviews with the Ombudsman and his testimony in court. This included saying he only struck Mr Russell once in a police statement but later saying it was three or four times in court, getting his timeline of events wrong and making an allegation of assault against Mr Russell's 10-year-old son which had never been mentioned in any interview or statement before McClean made the claim in court.
She also said the jury should consider the evidence provided by dentist Mr Sherrard, who said that Mr Russell's injuries were significant, severe and caused by "considerable force" when deciding whether or not McClean used reasonable force during the altercation.
With regards to whether or not McClean had acted in self-defence, Ms Gilmore noted body camera footage of McClean telling Mr Russell that he punched him because Mr Russell had "hit him first", with the constable making this statement a number of times to Mr Russell and his family members.
She said: "What he did was retaliation. You did this to me so I did this to you."
Ms Gilmore also asked the jury to "not speculate" on gaps in the evidence and to remove "any prejudices they may have about police officers and criminals" when making their verdict.
In the defence's closing argument, Mr Turkington, highlighted Mr Russell's previous convictions for violent offences, including using weapons such as keys or crowbars to commit them. He said Mr Russell "did not just have a taste for violence, but was hungry for it."
He said that due to Mr Russell's record, McClean was likely to have feared for his safety after he was punched by him and noted the testimony of the other officers in attendance who said that Mr Russell was "the strongest person they have had to restrain".
He also said the body camera footage used by the prosecution backs up the defence's case as it shows Mr Russell repeatedly "lashing out" after being restrained, the threats he made towards officers and spitting at them, including in McClean's face.
Mr Turkington asked the jury to consider McClean's "good character" as a police officer who was willing to take the stand and give testimony, as well as being cross examined. Something he said the defence was unable to do with Mr Russell or his family members who were in attendance during the incident.
He also asked the jury to consider whether Mr Russell's injuries actually were serious injuries and stressed that McClean had acted lawfully in self-defence due to the threat posed by Mr Russell and that he made the remarks about hitting Mr Russell because he had been hit because he was "getting down to his level."
In summing up of the case for the Jury before sending them off for deliberations, Judge Millar said that the burden of proof in the case was on the prosecution, and that if the jury had any doubts that McClean did not act in self-defence during the altercation then he should be found not guilty. However he said that if the jury believes that McClean did act maliciously and unlawfully, then he should be found guilty.
The jury was sent out to make its deliberations at around midday on January 29, returning just over an hour later at 1pm to give their verdict of not guilty. Including the time taken for lunch, the jury deliberated the case for around 30 minutes.
After being aquitted of the offences, Constable McClean quickly left the dock as the trial ended.
For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.
English (United States) ·