He took another sip of water before going on. ‘When considering the evidence of Mr Starr, you should bear in mind that he has already pleaded guilty to the offences with which Mr Gready is charged, and given evidence which implicated Mr Gready after formally agreeing to help the prosecution by doing so. Mr Starr did this hoping to get a lesser sentence as a result. Because this is the situation, you should approach Mr Starr’s evidence with caution, knowing that Mr Starr has an obvious incentive to give evidence which implicates Mr Gready. You should ask yourselves whether Mr Starr has, or may have, tailored his evidence to implicate Mr Gready falsely or whether you can be sure, despite the potential benefit to Mr Starr of giving evidence against Mr Gready, that what Mr Starr has told you is the truth.’

Jupp paused again, to allow his words to sink in, then turned to Stephen Cork. ‘You may proceed.’

Cork stood and addressed the jury with the consummate charm of a favourite uncle, neither speaking down or up to them. Instead, his voice was gently conversational, as if he was just chatting to a few mates in his local pub.

He began by talking about the discovery of the drugs in the Ferrari in the trailer at Newhaven Port, Michael Starr’s subsequent arrest, escape and rearrest. The raid on Terence Gready’s home and the items found there. He recapped on the evidence from Haydn Kelly regarding the CCTV footage showing Starr entering the offices of TG Law, then the evidence from DS Alexander on the items concealed in the bedpost and on the safety deposit box key found hidden in a canister in Gready’s garden shed. He followed that with a detailed summary of the key points of Emily Denyer’s evidence.

He concluded by saying, ‘You have heard the most damning evidence of all from Mr Michael Starr. This is a man who, despite the defendant’s quite ludicrous assertions that they have never met, is clearly both the defendant’s colleague, lieutenant and co-conspirator. Over many years Mr Starr has played an instrumental role in helping the defendant develop a vast and highly lucrative drugs empire. I would remind you that Mr Starr has already confessed to his crimes by pleading guilty to all counts on which he is charged. The defendant’s assertion that Mr Starr has in some highly elaborate way framed him as a scapegoat is, I put to you, like a drowning man grasping at driftwood.’