‘Ladies and gentlemen, even if you were inclined to accept Mr Thomson’s evidence, you could not convict my client. His evidence stands alone and you would have to acquit due to a total lack of corroboration. But even this evidence is fatally flawed.

‘Mr Thomson identifies Charlie Gallagher as the killer. He claims that he recognised him. Let us examine the true strength of that proposition.

‘If he really saw the shooting, saw a man being injured, his life in danger, he would have telephoned for an ambulance. He did not. He had not seen a stranger he might have been able to identify. He had not seen someone he thought he vaguely recognised. The man with the gun, the killer, was someone he claims he recognised. Someone he knew. Someone he was at school with. And yet, and yet ladies and gentlemen, no name is forthcoming. Why would Barclay Thomson conceal this crucial evidence if, if he had actually recognised the murderer? The answer to this question is, you may think, all too obvious.

‘When he found himself talking to the police, he would surely have named the attacker. He did not. He feigns to be a citizen just doing his duty. Yet he would not even give his name and address. He makes telephone calls, anonymously, and only later, much later, does he come forward. Comes forward at a time when he has had every opportunity to be influenced by local rumour. How much better would it have been if his approach had been open and straightforward? Alas, for the Crown, it was not.

‘The Advocate Depute, quite rightly, told you the Crown does not require to prove a motive. Equally, the defence does not have to demonstrate why a witness has behaved in a less than honest manner. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest you would not take any decision in your lives, even a trivial decision in your own lives, based on the evidence of Barclay Thomson. If that is so, you would surely not use it to convict a man of murder.

‘The defence have led evidence to demonstrate that Charlie Gallagher could not have killed Kevin Boyle because he was not there. His mother told you that. Now it would be easy to say that a mother would lie to protect her son and simply dismiss her evidence. Well, the world has become a sad and sorry place if a woman is to be disbelieved just because she is a mother. Yet again the Crown’s approach is to pour scorn. You are not allowed to have a party, unless it is planned weeks ahead. Uncle Eddie is portrayed as if he was a simpleton. True, his timing may not coincide with Mrs Gallagher but all that does is to demonstrate that this evidence has not been concocted and can be relied upon.’