Now, there is an important direction of law that I need to give to you about the telephone call that Mr Silcot said that he received on 19 April 2011. This is because Mr Lewis, in his final address, put to you that you may infer from that telephone call, notwithstanding that Mr Silcot said it was not Roy Cooper's voice, the following. He said you can infer that the call was made at Roy Cooper's direction.
Secondly, you could infer that the only person who would be advantaged by the call would be Roy Cooper, in that John Silcot may be intimidated.
Thirdly, the caller knew that Silcot had put Roy Cooper in gaol before.
Fourthly, that these proceedings were at a stage when the trial was imminent and the trial was scheduled just over a week later and you will recall you were empanelled on 29 April, some 12 days after the call was made. Five, the caller said he was calling on behalf of Roy Cooper and the caller said, "Be careful, otherwise Roy Cooper will get you," and then the caller said, "Job's done." Those were seven facts, which, Mr Lewis asserted to you, meant that Mr Roy Cooper was the person, although he did not make the call, was the person who instigated the call.
Then Mr Lewis said it followed, if you accept those propositions, firstly it is the only reasonable inference to conclude that Roy Cooper is the person who made the call or caused the call to be made, and two, that Cooper knew that if John Silcot gave truthful evidence, Roy Cooper would be implicated in these offences, and three, it was not the act of an innocent man and is only consistent with Roy Cooper's implication in the crimes alleged.
If you accept these propositions, and you will remember my direction about drawing of inferences, which I gave to you yesterday, the prosecution contend that it is a fact, a further strand of evidence, to assist you in determining the guilt of Mr Cooper insofar as Charges 1 and 2 are concerned, being those involving Mr Silcot, but not the 3 and 4, relating to Estelle Kingshott or her son Marcus Venier. Mr Hands submitted that Mr Roy Cooper did not make the call because he did not have the mobile number of John Silcot. Silcot had obtained the number some two years earlier and said he had given it to Estelle Kingshott and Trevor Power.
I now need to give you some directions about the way in which you can use this evidence. Evidence of acts performed after a crime has been committed are capable of being used as an unspoken or an implied admission by the accused person that they are responsible for a particular crime. You may be able to use an act in this way if you can reason that (1) The accused caused the caller to make the call and directed him to state in substance what the caller said to John Silcot after the crime was committed, and secondly, the only reasonable explanation for the accused doing those acts was that he believed that he had committed the crime - as I say, Counts 1 and 2 - and he believed that unless he acted in that way he would be implicated in that crime, and thirdly, so by causing the call that he made and directing the substance of it, the accused has admitted his responsibility for the crime.