The decision of whether or not the Bromby brothers assaulted their neighbour Henry Talbot last year is now in the hands of Acting Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo.

Lawyers made their closing arguments in the trial yesterday, with the defence asserting that Mr. Talbot is lying and the Crown asserting that the Brombys and the Police were in it together.

Brothers Peter and John Bromby are charged with assaulting Mr. Talbot and using threatening words against him.

The dispute in question took place on May 16, 2004, when the brothers discovered that Mr. Talbot was bulldozing natural rock formations on the Gilbert?s Bay Beach in Somerset and using the boulders to block the Bromby family?s access to the beach as well as lower the high-tide watermark, effectively increasing his property. Mr. Talbot owns the majority of the Gilbert?s Bay Beach above the high-tide mark.

The Brombys have maintained that on learning of Mr. Talbot?s actions they called the Police. They said they then took a stick and a piece of pipe down to the beach with them for protection for several reasons: their family have clashed with Mr. Talbot in the past, there had been dogs on the beach on previous occasions, and on this occasion in particular they thought they were outnumbered.

However Mr. Talbot, who is considerably older and smaller than the two Bromby brothers, said the brothers threatened to kill him and that Peter Bromby jabbed him in the stomach with the pipe he was carrying, leaving a bruise.

His allegations were supported by an employee who was also on the beach. The Police witnesses called in the trial ? who, unusually, were all called for the defence ? said that when they arrived all three men were agitated. When ordered to calm down the Bromby brothers did so, however Mr. Talbot was eventually arrested when he remained vocal. Defence lawyer Richard Horseman said that had Mr. Talbot been assaulted, it would be natural for him to declare at some point to any of the three Police officers that they ?had the wrong man? and tell his side of the story.

Instead, Mr. Talbot waited until three days after the incident ? the same day an article about his illegal activities on the Gilbert?s Bay beach was published in The Royal Gazette ? before going to Police. Mr. Horseman asserted that the article provided the motivation for Mr. Talbot to make the assault complaint.

Crown counsel Oonagh Vaucrosson countered that Mr. Talbot felt it pointless to make any complaint as it appeared clear the Police were biased and on the side of the Bromby brothers. Mr. Talbot had just been assaulted, she declared, and was surrounded by people who stood ?head and shoulders? above him. ?Why would he complain? He?d be gobsmacked.?

Mr. Horseman, on the other hand, refuted that assertion by noting that Mr. Talbot had said he did not read through Police statements because he trusted what the officers had written. ?Does that sound like you really consider the Police are against you??

Even so, Mr. Tokunbo noted, the way in which Police took the statement ? by telling Mr. Talbot they were short-staffed and sending him home to write his own statement ? was ?terrible?, and not much weight could be attached to it.

Mr. Horseman also pointed out that Mr. Talbot never showed Police his injuries, despite being specifically asked by one officer if he had received any.

The idea that the Brombys would call the Police and then go down to the beach and assault the elderly man knowing the Police were on the way was ?ridiculous?, Mr. Horseman said.

Mrs. Vaucrosson, however, pointed out that it was similarly illogical for the Bromby brothers to feel they needed such protection knowing the Police were on the way.

She said that for all intents and purposes Mr. Talbot was the person who was ?set upon? ? the Brombys approached him armed with the pipe and the stick.

She also questioned the credibility of the Police testimony, noting that all Police witnesses said they saw no stick or pipe, despite Peter Bromby himself saying that one officer asked him to put down the pipe.

Armed in such a way and with a history of altercation with Mr. Talbot behind them, Ms Vaucrosson said the Bromby brothers could not be in ?the spirit of cooperation. Instead the brothers were ?two angry large men coming at you with sticks. They knew they were going down there for a fight.?

Legally, the apprehension of such an assault fell under the charge, she said ? as ?threatening gestures? fell under the charge of ?threatening words?, though Mr. Horseman countered that the brothers should therefore have been charged with such offences and Mr. Tokunbo agreed.Mr. Tokunbo will make his ruling in the case on May 18