Murder trial told man could have lived if he was ‘treated properly’
A BARRISTER has told a murder trial the alleged victim could have lived if a sepsis infection had been “treated properly” and in a more timely fashion.
He asked the jury to find his client not guilty of murder and manslaughter.
Steven Chappell, 29, is accused of the murder of Daniel Bradley, of Bridgend, who died on September 23 last year. He denies the charge and also denies an alternative count of manslaughter.
It is the prosecution case that in the early hours of September 9, Mr Bradley was walking down a lane near the New Brogden pub in New Road, Porthcawl, when he was assaulted twice by Chappell.
Mr Bradley had been drinking in the pub that evening and was described as “his normal self” joking and dancing around.
Witnesses said that while in the lane by the pub Chappell had accused Mr Bradley of owing him money.
Following the assault, the court heard Mr Bradley was taken to hospital on September 11 and discharged before an ambulance was called to his house on September 15.
On that day, Mr Bradley’s mother had found her son “frantic”, with mottled legs, and described his lips as “going blue”.
He was treated at the intensive trauma unit at the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend before suffering a cardiac arrest.
The court was told Mr Bradley had contracted sepsis and later died in hospital on September 23 with his family at his bedside.
Giving his closing speech to the jury, defence barrister Pete Rouch KC said there was “no issue” his client had unlawfully assaulted Mr Bradley outside the New Brogden pub on September 9. But he added: “That doesn’t mean he is guilty of murder or manslaughter.”
Speaking about Chappell’s intent towards Mr Bradley, Mr Rouch said: “In a nutshell, if you are not sure that the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm, then he’s not guilty of murder and you will convict him of manslaughter, subject to your views on causation.
“If you do not conclude that the injury caused by Steven Chappell was the significant and operative cause of Daniel Bradley’s death because of intervening factors, you will acquit him of both offences.”
The barrister also asked the jury if there were “intervening factors” relating to Mr Bradley’s medical treatment which could have led to his death.
He said: “Ask yourself a simple question. If he had been treated properly and timely could it be he wouldn’t have died? The answer we suggest, based wholly on the evidence, is yes, he maybe wouldn’t have died if treated properly and timely.
“The fractured rib was obviously caused by the incident but the development and lack of treatment of sepsis ultimately led to his death.”
Mr Rouch added: “(Mr Bradley) didn’t die of a fractured rib, he died from the catastrophic effects of a cardiac arrest from untreated or delayed treated septic shock. If that’s your view then your view of the incident in the lane becomes more and more remote.”
The barrister asked the jury asked if Mr Bradley would have survived had the emergency services been quicker in bringing him to hospital on September 15.
He said Mr Bradley would have been in hospital four-and-a-half hours earlier and the cardiac arrest
“might have been avoided”.
He added: “At the very least members of the jury he might have had a fighting chance, a chance he deserved.”
Chappell, of Beechwood Avenue, Cwmdare, Aberdare, denies the murder of Mr Bradley and an alternative count of manslaughter.
The court heard he does accept he was involved in beating Mr Bradley and he will also accept acting unlawfully in doing so.
The trial continues.