Mr Pearson case 16/11/18

November 16th 2018, Douglas Pearson, appeared in Ipswich Crown Court after being arrested in connection with an attack in the communal area of flats in Portman’s Walk, Ipswich, in the early hours of December 12th 2017.

The victim was left suffering with cuts, bruises and two broken teeth.

The victim told the police that he had received alarming text messages from Pearson threatening an assault and on the night of the attack, Pearson was calling him names and being aggressive.

Pearson later denied the assault and claimed he was not involved in the attack as he hadn’t seen his neighbour for a week.

The defendant provided an alibi for the night in question, which was his sister. She provided a statement giving information as to where he was on the night of the attack but there was no evidence to prove his whereabouts.

The defendants alibi stated that her brother left for a while during the evening, but returned by 11pm. She supported her statement by saying she remembers this as they were watching a television programme that night.

The case continued the next day so I wasn’t able to hear the jury’s verdict. However, I went online and discovered they had found the defendant not guilty of the alleged attack.

In reflection, this case was interesting as it was the first crown court case I had heard and it was interesting to see how the court conducted it. On first impressions, it was very fast paced. It was clear that if you are the only court reporter, you needed have short-hand training for the key facts in order to report it effectively.

I thought the case was strong in the fact that there was some evidence of text messages, one alibi and a victim that had sustained significant injuries. The only thing that wasn’t present was any hard evidence of the whereabouts of the defendant. For example, no CCTV footage of the attack or any CCTV footage of where the defendant was between being with his sister and returning to her house by 11pm. This made the case slightly harder for the jury as they had to rely on the alibi and each sides argument.

In this care there were no reporting restrictions as there will be no further trial for a jury to hear and it wasn’t a case involving juveniles or sexual offences.

EB