THE MOTHER of Lola James will “blame herself” for what happened to her daughter “for the rest of her life”, but had “no idea” it would happen, a jury heard.
Lola James died in hospital as a result of injuries she sustained on the morning of July 17, 2020.
Her mum, Sinead James, denies causing or allowing her death, while Kyle Bevan denies murdering Lola.
David Elias, representing James, told the jury that she “never in a million years” expected anything to happen to Lola.
“Sinead James woke to every parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “One of her young children collapsed desperately needing medical help. She had no clue what happened.
“She had no idea that anything like that was ever going to happen.
“Sinead James has spent her life as a mother dealing with abusive men and protecting her children. She’s always done that as they are her world.
“With the hindsight she has now she is always going to blame herself for what happened to Lola. But that does not make her guilty of this offence.”
Mr Elias said Bevan told James he would protect her and her children from her ex-partner.
“As far as her relationship with Kyle is concerned, it was completely different to [her abusive ex-partner].”
Mr Elias pointed to the couple’s shared finances, family activities, and “working as a team” with the children.
“I’m not here to suggest it was a perfect relationship,” he added. “Of course it wasn’t.”
Mr Elias told the jury James had said in her interviews that she “never thought [Bevan] would do this” and that she “would have got rid of him” if she did.
“Had she not done that before?,” he asked.
Mr Elias highlighted where James told the police ‘I’ve failed them’.
“What parent is not going to say then ‘I’ve failed them’?,” he said.
“She’s going to say that to herself for the rest of her life.
“But that’s with hindsight. What she now knows, not what she knew then.”
Mr Elias said that James protected her children from risk, taking them out of the house when Bevan had taken Xanax and started “smashing the house up” with a hammer on May 14, that she had a 14 minute call with her domestic abuse officer on July 16, and had asked Bevan for his details to make enquiries under Clare’s Law.
John Hipkin, representing Bevan, said he would not argue the defendant was “whiter than white”, adding Bevan had “character failures” and issues with drug taking.
“But does that make him a child murderer?,” he asked.
“Even to be accused of this horrendous crime would taint people’s perceptions of you,” he warned the jury.
Mr Hipkin said that when asked in police interview about an incident involving her youngest child in a pram, James had told police: ‘I don’t know. I was way behind’.
“By the time she came to give her evidence that became ‘I put my life on the line to save my child by diving in to the road’,” said Mr Hipkin.
“They can’t both be true.”
Mr Hipkin highlighted statements made by Casey Morgan.
Ms Morgan told the prosecution: ‘I didn’t like him. I said it to Sinead almost straight away. He is showing signs of being controlling. I told her more than once but she didn’t listen’.
However, on May 15, Ms Morgan messaged James: ‘Just you and him be happy. You’re both good people’, and messaged Bevan: ‘Please Kyle keep the relationship going’ on July 5.
“The point I am seeking to make is to look perhaps in a fair way at what was being said at the time,” he said.
Mr Elias also pointed this exchange, cautioning the jury over “rewriting history”.
He said that Ms Morgan told the court Lola was ‘withdrawn, upset and not herself’ after the injury to her nose, but had said in a police interview ‘I touched her face and she told me it didn’t hurt. She carried on as normal and played with my kids’.
“This shows the real danger of hindsight, and paints a very different picture,” he said.
Mr Hipkin pointed to another occasion where Lola began crying when out with James and Ms Morgan, so Ms Morgan took her back for Bevan to look after her.
“Why would she have done that if she had any concerns about Kyle?,” he asked.
He said Bevan “stands by” the account he had given to the police that Lola had fallen down the stairs after the family dog had collided into her.
“Not only had Kyle Bevan come to the house, but what is also true is the dog had come to the house and had been there for a number of weeks,” said Mr Hipkin.
He said witnesses described the dog as “not the type of dog you should have around young children” and that they “thought it was a banned dog”.
“What we do know is the dog was destroyed for causing injury to someone,” he said.
He added that forensic pathologist Dr Stephen Leadbeatter had said that a fall down the stairs would be “more forceful” and “from a greater height” if the dog had collided with Lola.
Forensic evidence showed there was contact blood staining from Lola on the coffee table, and Mr Hipkin asked the jury whether this showed that Bevan had been telling the truth about the dog knocking Lola off the sofa when her face was injured.
The trial continues.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article