Defence barrister for Colin, Barry McDonald presented a number of strong legal arguments as to why the case against Colin should have been dismissed at the close of the prosecution case.

According to Mr McDonald the prosecution had failed to establish a case against Colin.

Barry McDonald said the only evidence against Colin was DNA on a latex glove tip and a mixed DNA profile on a seatbelt buckle in the alleged getaway car.

There is no evidence, he said, as to when it was deposited there.

Mr McDonald said the court had heard evidence that the gunman who escaped in the passenger seat of the getaway car - which allegedly contained Mr Duffy's DNA on the seatbelt - was left-handed and over 6ft tall, while Mr Duffy is right-handed and under 6ft.

He said the crown was not in a position to give Mr Duffy any role in the attack.  Therefore, the judge ought to have acceded to the application for a direction made on behalf of Colin at the close of the prosecution case.

Mr McDonald relied upon the well known statement of Lord Lane LCJ in R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1039 as follows:-

"(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant there is no difficulty – the judge will stop the case. (2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence. (a) Where the judge concludes that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it, it is his duty, on a submission being made, to stop the case. (b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability, or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence on which the jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury." (per Lord Lane CJ at p. 127).

In order to support this argument Mr McDonald referred to previous cases where the defendant in those cases had been aquitted: