By Brian Smith

A DUNDEE teenager was found guilty of kicking and stamping a man to death in Dens Road last summer by a jury at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday.

Jurors rejected the argument put forward on behalf of 16-year-old James Simpson that he had been acting in self-defence and found him guilty by a majority of culpable homicide.

By their verdict of culpable homicide, rather than the charge of murder Simpson faced, the jury accepted there had been provocation which prompted a loss of self-control, leading him to fatally injure former Dundee man Steven Jones.

At no time during the seven-day trial was the court given a coherent explanation of what turned an otherwise uneventful night out into one of escalating violence.

Mr Jones (33) brought his children, James (9) and Kimberly (7), north from his home in Droitwich, Worcestershire, to spend part of their summer holiday with their gran in Dundee.

He was accompanied by a friend from work, Daniel Pawlak (28) and spent the day taking the children swimming and at a family meal before going out to a club night organised by the Polish community in Dundee at the Centenary Bar.

Simpson, of Loganlee Terrace, and friends spent the early part of the evening of July 29 drinking on waste ground behind Groucho’s in Nethergate before accompanying a friend, Kenneth Morland (18), to Dens Road in search of a party he had received a text message about.

They were standing near the junction with North Isla Street, trying to locate the party, when Steven Jones and Daniel Pawlak approached just before 1.30am, heading towards the city centre intending to go for a last drink.

Perhaps something was said—Kenneth Morland said words were exchanged—Daniel Pawlak said he thought exception was taken because they had been speaking in Polish. Kenneth Morland said Simpson had been “growly towards people, a bit irritable like he had a couple of drinks too many,” as they made their way to Dens Road. Both agreed Steven Jones and James Simpson found themselves face to face in a stand-off that quickly escalated into a fight.

Kenneth Morland said Daniel Pawlak intervened, striking Simpson on the head with a bottle of Polish beer he was carrying, which was found at the scene. When he tried to pull Mr Pawlak away, he said he, too, was struck on the head with a bottle and both youths were later found to have head injuries consistent with being struck by a blunt object. Mr Pawlak denied having the bottle and using it as a weapon.

Dens Road residents, alerted by what one said was the “ferocity” of the noise from the street, then took up the account. All three eyewitnesses who gave evidence graphically described a series of kicks and stamps to the head of Mr Jones as he lay prone and defenceless on the roadway.

James Simpson sat in the dock, shaking uncontrollably at times as the full extent of what he had done was brought home to him.

The eyewitnesses variously described stamps, “sometimes one footed, sometimes two,” and when one shouted from his window, he said he saw Simpson pause and look up, before kicking the victim’s head again several times.

Another resident described what he saw as being like, “someone kicking a football.”

Professor Derrick Pounder told the court Mr Jones sustained multiple skull fractures and corresponding brain injuries. One fracture split the base of the skull across its full breadth at the skull’s strongest point and he said the injuries were the most severe that pathologists find in this type of incident.

Police arrived quickly in response to the residents’ frantic 999 calls and found Simpson and his companion heading away from the scene, towards Strathmartine Road.

A scan of CCTV coverage in the area picked them up before they were stopped and it showed Simpson demonstrating a stamping action as he walked beside Kenneth Morland, who was complaining about the injury he sustained in the fight with Daniel Pawlak.

Police officers who stopped the pair said they saw blood coming from a small cut on Simpson’s head and when he was pressed for an explanation of what had caused the wound, he said he had been “bottled.” Blood was also seen on the trainers he was wearing.

Questioned at police headquarters, Simpson first insisted Mr Jones had been responsible for starting the fight and he only punched him after he was attacked. Over the course of the half-hour interview Simpson steadily admitted a greater and greater involvement. It was suggested he was making sure Mr Jones could not get up and he admitted to being “really, really angry, and “booting and kicking him.”

Detectives asked if the reason he had not admitted that before was because he knew he had gone over the score. “Maybe have,” Simpson replied.

Advocate depute Alastair Carmichael asked the jury to accept that this admission and the extent of the injuries would entitle them to convict Simpson of murder.

Defence counsel Mark Stewart QC said confronted by two attackers, one of them armed with and prepared to use a bottle, what Simpson did in the heat of the moment could be said to be self-defence and in defence of his companion.

If jurors were not prepared to accept this, they could return a verdict of guilty to culpable homicide by finding that Simpson had been provoked into a loss of control after being hit with the bottle.

In her charge, Lady Clark of Calton urged jurors to weigh points made by the advocate depute and defence counsel about what witnesses had said with care.

She then went on to deal with Simpson’s statements to police, both after he was stopped in the street near the scene of the incident and in a later interview at police headquarters.

His statements could be seen in parts to suggest his innocence. Things he said to police could be taken as pointing to self-defence and provocation.

The Crown said that other parts of the statement pointed to Simpson’s guilt. If they believed the points which pointed to innocence, they would have to acquit and if they rejected these and accepted those pointing to guilt, they would have to convict.

On the question of self- defence, she said events had not taken place in a jury room but at great speed in the street and they must consider them in that context.

She said jurors, equally, should not weigh the question of self-defence in too fine a detail. They were entitled to take into account the nature of the attack, the severity of injuries and the way he behaved to decide whether Simpson intended to kill or whether he showed a wicked disregard for the consequences of what he did or whether it was in self-defence.

On provocation, she said if they rejected self-defence they would need to reconsider the evidence and decide between murder or provocation, in which case their verdict would be one of culpable homicide. To find that he had been provoked into a loss of control negated the wicked element of what he did.

After the jury’s verdict, Lady Clark told Simpson, “In my view this is a very serious conviction and now the matter has got to this stage, the proper course is to remand you in custody.”

Sentence was adjourned to the High Court in Glasgow on June 18 for the preparation of reports.