‘May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, you’ve already heard from me once at the start of the trial, and I’m not going to keep you for very long now. You already know, and his Lordship will remind you when he sums up, that your choices in this case do not include a simple verdict of not guilty. Either Henry Lang is guilty of murder, or he is guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. Provocation means, not only that he was in fact provoked to lose his self-control by what his wife said, but also that a reasonable man in his position would have been provoked to lose his self-control. On behalf of the Crown I say that there are four very good reasons why you can be sure that the right verdict is one of guilty of murder.
‘Firstly, Henry Lang had a clear motive for killing his wife. Secondly, his explanation for taking a knife with him to Mrs Cameron’s house on 28 April is not credible. Thirdly, Mr Lang’s suggestion that he lost his self-control because of the stupid remark he says Susan Lang made is not credible. Lastly, Mr Lang’s story about losing his memory and recovering it so conveniently four days before this trial started is also not credible.
‘First, the motive. Members of the jury, Henry Lang is a man who obsessed about his children, and who was obsessed with his children. You remember Mrs Cameron’s evidence. It was always “his” children, wasn’t it, never “our” children, or even “the” children? Mrs Cameron was worried about his obsession, so much so that she made a note of it after her very first meeting with him. She was right to be worried. Henry Lang was a man who was determined to have his children back at any cost. Mr Justice Wesley had already awarded interim custody of the children to Susan. He simply couldn’t take the risk that he might lose custody permanently, and he was ready to go to any lengths to prevent that. He wasn’t going to leave the fate of his children up to the High Court, was he? He was going to take matters into his own hands. He was going to make sure that Susan Lang couldn’t keep him from his children any longer.
‘Members of the jury, I’m not going to pretend that Susan Lang was a perfect mother. I can’t. You’ve heard the evidence, and you know better. Indeed, you may well have some sympathy for Mr Lang because of the way she treated him during the marriage. You may also think that it was very likely that Mr Justice Wesley would have given custody to Mr Lang if he had pursued his case. That’s one of the things that make this case so tragic. Susan Lang was drinking and taking drugs, and she was associating with some very undesirable people. The prosecution don’t seek to avoid that, and if the High Court had known about it, you may think that there could only have been one result. That’s why we have courts, members of the jury, so that judges can make difficult decisions when people can’t agree about sensitive matters such as child custody. Unfortunately, Mr Lang wasn’t prepared to be patient and allow the High Court to do its work. But the law doesn’t allow people to take matters into their own hands in the way he did.
‘Second, his reason for taking the knife with him to Mrs Cameron’s house. He told you that he had been threatened by a man who said he was speaking on behalf of Daniel Cleary. You’ve heard a good deal about Daniel Cleary in this trial, and you know that he is a man with a bad record, a man who might well have been capable of threatening someone. You’ve heard the evidence of Miss Fisk – which the prosecution don’t challenge in any way – that Susan Lang said that Daniel Cleary was going to threaten Henry Lang, with the intention of getting him to give up his fight for his children. But Miss Fisk couldn’t tell you that Daniel Cleary ever did such a thing, because she has no way of knowing whether he did or not. She also told you that when she and Miss Turner, quite rightly, challenged her about what she had said and pointed out the possible consequences, Susan Lang retreated very quickly and tried to talk her way out of it by saying that she had nothing to do with it and blaming it all on Daniel Cleary. But members of the jury, that doesn’t make any sense, does it? Why would Cleary have threatened Henry Lang unless Susan had asked him to? Isn’t it more likely that the whole Daniel Cleary story was simply made up for effect?
‘Did Henry Lang really believe that he was in danger from Daniel Cleary on the morning of 28 April? He’d been out and about on the two previous days, and he hadn’t taken a knife with him then, had he? What was so different about 28 April? Did he really think that Daniel Cleary would strike him down for not withdrawing his custody application only two days after he had been warned? Did he really think that Cleary would strike him down when he was meeting with his wife and Mrs Cameron? And if he did, why did he expose himself by walking the considerable distance from his home to hers, instead of driving? He said that there were sometimes parking problems in that area, but Susan managed to park there, didn’t she?
‘No, members of the jury: when Henry Lang carefully selected that knife from the set he kept in his kitchen, it wasn’t because he was afraid of Daniel Cleary. Henry Lang had already decided to kill his wife if the chance presented itself. The chance did present itself, and he seized it with both hands – literally.
‘Third, Mr Lang tells you that he lost his self-control because Susan uttered six words: “What makes you think they’re yours?” A hurtful thing to say? Of course. To a man like Henry Lang it was a low blow, a disgusting thing for her to say, designed, you may think, to wound him as much as possible. If Susan Lang said that, there was no excuse for it. But, members of the jury, he told you himself, didn’t he? She was good at winding him up, and he was used to it. He controlled himself during the meeting with Mrs Cameron, as he had controlled himself every day throughout the time when their marriage had begun to go wrong: when she went out at night; when she came home drunk; when she started smoking cannabis at home; and when she finally left, taking his children – his children – with her. Did that one remark in itself cause him to lose his self-control to such an extent that he made that frenzied attack on her? To stab her with that large knife seven times, with such severity that any one of his blows would have been fatal in itself? Or was this the opportunity he had hoped for when he carefully selected the knife before leaving home?
‘Finally, Mr Lang’s claim that he lost his memory of the critical events of 28 April, and recovered it only four days before trial. Members of the jury, if you’re caught red-handed holding a knife covered with your wife’s blood, and she’s bleeding to death right in front of you, you’re going to need a pretty good explanation to avoid a conviction for murder, aren’t you? It takes time to concoct a story good enough to get you out of that. So Henry Lang did the sensible thing. He bought himself some time. He told the police, and he told his own lawyers, that he couldn’t remember anything at all. They repeatedly confronted him with the facts, and still he said he couldn’t remember.
‘And then, four days before the trial, hey presto, his memory returns. It’s simply not believable, is it, members of the jury? And the story he concocted during all those long days awaiting trial isn’t believable. The truth is that he made use of the time to come up with a story he thinks will buy him some sympathy in your eyes. But that’s all it is – a story.
‘Members of the jury, the only verdict that makes sense is that Henry Lang is guilty of the brutal, premeditated murder of his wife, and it is your duty to say so by your verdict.’
When the judge and jury had left for the day, and the courtroom was quiet, Andrew approached Ben and Jess, who were gathering up their papers.
‘Thank you,’ he said to Ben.
Ben looked at him inquiringly.
‘For stopping me when I was about to go too far with the judge.’
Ben smiled. ‘I’ve never seen you in that mood before,’ he said. ‘You are always so calm and collected. Rainer is really getting to you, isn’t he?’
‘There’s something wrong, Ben. I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something not right.’ He paused. ‘Anyway, it’s looking good for Mr Lang. I’m sure you are happy about that.’
‘You think so?’ Jess asked. ‘I’m not so sure. That was a convincing closing speech.’
‘Thank you,’ Andrew replied. ‘But I think the judge is going to do his best to row him out.’
‘I’m not sure we want that,’ Ben said. ‘You know as well as I do: if a judge goes too far in one direction, it often drives the jury the other way.’
‘Not in this case.’
‘Why not?’ Barratt asked.
‘Sympathy,’ Andrew replied. ‘Some of the jurors are going to put themselves in Henry Lang’s position, and say, “You know what? I might have done the same thing.”’