TRIAL: JURY’S OUT

In his closing submission, prosecution QC Ciaran Murphy described the 1991 murders as “two deaths, two spouses, one purpose”.

However Stewart’s defence QC Paul Ramsey said that the mother of two - who is 48 today - had “made admissions, serious admission but not to murder.”

Addressing the jury of nine men and three women for just over an hour on Monday morning prosecutor Ciaran Murphy said that there were many questions “crying out” to be answered but added that the court would not get the chance to hear them answered as Hazel Stewart was not taking the stand.

“She has chosen that you do not hear from her in the witness box, that she does not answer the questions that would be asked of her, questions that cry out for an explanation by her.”

He said: “If there is any conceivable innocent explanation to be given” Stewart had not given it.

“We say the reason she hasn’t placed herself in that position to be asked questions before you [the jury] is because she hasn’t any answers to suit her.

“You are entitled to draw inferences from her refusal to give evidence.”

Mr Murphy said that “from the outset” there was a joint plan by dentist Colin Howell - currently serving 21 years in Maghabery Prision for the murders of his wife and mother of four Lesley Howell and Pc Trevor Buchanan - and Hazel Stewart.

“It was the perfect murder.”

He said that Stewart had “acquiesced and encouraged” the death of Lesley Howell and had “sacrificed the life of her husband” by entering into the plan with Howell, 51.

“She facilitated Trevor Buchanan’s death in order that he would be exterminated by her lover in her home while her children were in bed and she was feet away as her husband struggled as poisonous gas was pumped into his mouth.”

Mr Murphy described Colin Howell as a “nasty piece of work but remember he was Hazel’s piece of work at that time and for some years after.

“The seeds of that relationship were planted in the summer of 1990 ironically through a Christian church that was to witness the most un-Christian act imaginable.”

He said that was when their “toxic partnership was born”, a partnership which was a “malign force which was destined to destroy other lives”.

He said that not only had Hazel Stewart and Howell killed their partners but they had branded them by perpetuating the lie that they had committed suicide.

He said that Stewart had” no thought” for her policeman husband whom she thought was not exciting or ambitious enough.

“She may have detested him or she may be so icy cold and unfeeling that she wanted rid of him for her own selfish ends.”

He told the jurors that they had had to reflect on some chilling evidence from Colin Howell and admitted that they may be asking themselves if he had inflated his account of Hazel Stewart’s involvement?

“If his motivation was to drag her down with him he could have given her a more central role,” said Mr Murphy adding that that pointed to the “veracity” of Howell’s account.

He said it was “sickeningly disturbing that two ostensibly normal people would embark on such a sick plan”.

He said that despite describing herself as “a meek, mild, soft individual” Hazel Stewart, a former Sunday School teacher and nursery assistant, had in fact put her husband up for “execution” and had “hoodwinked senior police”.

He said that she knew that “both had to die to let her be with her monstrous lover, Colin Howell.”

“He was hers and she was his at that time. She was up to her neck in this from day one.

“She wanted Lesley Howell dead, she wanted Trevor Buchanan dead, that was her desire. She would have gone to her grave with that secret.”

Mr Murphy challenged Stewart’s police interviews where she said; “I will argue that I didn’t know what he was coming to do.”

“She can argue all she likes,” said Mr Murphy.

“If his arrival was a shock, why not scream the house down? Why not wake the children? Why not wake the neighbours? Or wake the husband who had a gun? Why not turn off the engine? Why not disconnect the hose? Why not phone someone?

“There was a lack of intervention. She let it all happen because she wanted it to happen.

“It is a bit like employing a hit man to kill someone, do the dirty work, but it doesn’t mean you’re not responsible.”

Mr Murphy described Trevor Buchanan’s murder as a “gruesome extermination”.

“You knew your husband was going to be gassed. You wouldn’t watch that being done to a dog in the street if you had a grain of humanity, never mind your husband of ten years.”

Mr Murphy described the accused as having fooled everyone by playing the “grief stricken woman” who wanted to keep her hands clean.

He concluded that if Stewart was “so innocent” she didn’t have to see Colin Howell again after the murders, she “didn’t have to have him back in her bed in a matter of weeks.”

“Hazel Stewart was part of a joint plan to murder Lesley Howell and Trevor Buchanan, she was involved from the beginning to the end,” he said.

“She admitted ‘I let it happen. Yes I let it happen’. This was a joint enterprise. Two deaths, two spouses, one purpose.

“She can’t defend her actions because there is no defence. She lied to the police in 1991, she lied to the inquest, she lied clearly and consistently to match Howell.”

Mr Murphy told the jury: “You can conclude that Hazel Stewart was part of a joint enterprise to assist her lover to murder his wife and her husband. Were they in it together?

“There is no doubt.

“They did it together before, during and after. You should find her guilty of both of these murders.”

Closing defence submission

In the afternoon session, Mr Paul Ramsey QC addressed the jury in the defence of Hazel Stewart.

He began by telling that jurors that if they thought Stewart was possibly guilty, they must acquit her; if they thought she might be guilty, they must acquit her; if they thought she was partly guilty, they must acquit her.

“Because,” said Mr Ramsey, “the prosecution must prove her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.”

He said that the “flip side” of that is that the accused does not have to do anything, as she is innocent until proven guilty.

“That is not a special rule for Hazel Stewart, that applies to everyone.

“She doesn’t have to say a single word. She is entitled to do that.

“In her first police interview she was cautioned and the first words she heard was that she does not have to say anything. That is her right.”

He also told the jury that because Stewart did not take the stand and give evidence they may draw conclusions from that but he did point out that she had answered questions from police at length.

“Over three days, just seven minutes short of eight hours she answered questions, through tears, she did her best to reach back in her memory.

“Hazel Stewart may well be guilty of assisting an offender, withholding information, perverting the course of justice, or committing perjury by lying to a Coroner’s court. But she is not guilty of murder.”

Mr Ramsey said that Hazel Stewart “had made admissions, serious admissions but not to murder”.

However, he asked the jury why, if she was part of a joint enterprise, would the defendant co-operate so fully with police?

“It’s the last thing a guilty person would do. Wouldn’t a guilty woman stay silent?”

He said that Stewart had been “disarmingly frank and forthcoming”.

He reminded that jury that they had heard from Colin Howell for the best part of a week as he was the prosecution’s witness.

“He was virtually vaulting into the witness box to give evidence, he was champing at the bit,” said Mr Ramsey.

He also compared putting housewife Stewart in the witness box up against the prosecution QC Mr Murphy to sending a pub team to play Manchester United or Chelsea.

He said that Stewart was “subservient” to Howell who had planned and devised everything and had “employed and used” his lover.

He asked the jury to look at Hazel Stewart not as the mature woman she is today but to look at her as she was 20 years ago when she was only 28 years old.

He reminded jurors of her police interviews when she was asked why she didn’t do anything to stand up to Howell.

Mr Ramsey said that Stewart had admitted she allowed it to happen.

“She said ‘He was bad news. He had control over me. If he said jump, I would have jumped. I was just like a robot. I have to live with that - that I didn’t stand up and say no.’

“That is no admission of murder,” said Mr Ramsey. “It’s an acceptance of her involvement.”

Mr Ramsey also reminded that they had to separate prejudice and sympathy, no matter what their own views on marriage, adultery or abortion were.

“She is not on trial for her morals,” he said.

He told the jury that Howell had controlled the accused and that she was scared of him.

“Colin Howell was controlling and domineering particularly if he senses vulnerability - in patients, wives or lovers.”

He also reminded jurors of Mrs Hansford’s description of Hazel Stewart as “ordinary, didn’t stand out from the crowd, reserved” and asked them to contrast that with the description of Howell as “cold, calculating, intelligent, a ladies man”.

He said that it was not a straightforward case of two people working in perfect harmony as presented by the prosecution.

“And it was far from being the perfect crime,” said Mr Ramsey.

He said it was a crazy, hastily put-together plan that only remained undiscovered due to the “inadequacies of the first police investigation”.

He said that Howell had boasted about hoodwinking the police and added that he had got “lucky” that the only person who raised any suspicions, police officer and church member David Green, was not involved in the actual investigation.

He said it was not the sophisticated, cunning plan as suggested by police but a set of fortuitous circumstances with so many variables.

He put it to the jury that Howell acted on the spur of the moment because his motive was financial.

He was forced to act on the fateful Saturday as he believed his wife Lesley - who had come into money following the sudden death of her father - was leaving him.

Mr Ramsey said that Colin Howell had thought to himself: “Is Hazel on board? Don’t worry about it. I control her. I can deal with her.

“He was driven by something more base - money.”

Mr Ramsey will finish his concluding submissions this morning (Tuesday) before the jury retires to consider its verdict.