CLOSING SPEECH ON R V Hynes

May it please the court; members of the jury,

You have now seen the trial and you have heard the evidence from this case and arguments
from both the defence and the prosecution. The incident that took place months ago is
drawing to a close and it is time to provide a judgement. Your job, as members of the jury, is
to reach a fair and just verdict. In the meantime, my learned friends and I will be reviewing
the case by reminding you what the evidence suggests, whilst addressing the relevancy of
the law in this case.
Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the burden of proof lies with
me to prove there is beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Essentially, you
must be satisfied so that you are sure of Rowan Hynes’s guilt. What this means, is that if you
have any reasonable doubts as to the defendant’s guilt, you should pronounce the
defendant not guilty. However, if you agree with me and do not doubt that the evidence
shows the defendant’s guilt, I have proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
and your job would be to return a guilty verdict.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, let me take you back to that afternoon on 8 th July 2023.
During a protest against oil that was scheduled at 13:13, the event took an unexpected turn
as it gained momentum. The initially peaceful protesters of approximately 100 individuals at
the location grew in size, causing a disruption to many vehicles. The protest led to the
blockage of roads, resulting in a traffic jam. As a consequence, numerous drivers, including
one driver, found themselves delayed and, regrettably, late for important appointments.
The road blockade, unintended as it may have been, also posed a serious impediment to
emergency services. Ambulances in route to a nearby hospital were unable to get to their
location through the large blockade, potentially affecting critical medical situations.
Tensions escalated as individuals at the front of the vehicular queue engaged in heated
arguments with the protestors. Frustrations escalated to the point where a person from the
queue attempted to physically remove a seated protestor obstructing the road. In response,
a member of the protesting crowd intervened, increasing the chaos by directing anger
towards a driver.
You will be familiar with the facts of the case by now and from all the evidence you have
heard, it simply points to one answer. Rowan was involved at the scene and has created a
risk to the public by acting recklessly.

Points that the defence has made