The trial of three people accused of turning a drug deal into a robbery approached it’s conclusion yesterday, with the Crown and defence offering their final statements.The Crown allege that brothers Ezra (EJ) Ararat and Ezra Williams, along with Zharrin Simmons, ambushed the complainant, armed with a knife and a machete before the tables were turned on them by the victims.However Mr Ararat, 25, and Ezra Williams, 27, claimed the complainants, along with a third, unidentified individual, had attacked them.And Ms Simmons, 20, told Supreme Court that she was alone at her father’s house at the time of the incident and was in no way involved.Defence attorneys called the complainants unreliable and untrustworthy, saying they had admitted lying about the incident while under oath.The defendants have pleaded not guilty to two counts of robbery in relation to an incident on Hermitage Road on August 27 last year.According to prosecutors the victims, 22-year-old Kenneth Williams and 17-year-old Victoria Decoute, contacted Ezra Williams on the evening in question to purchase cannabis.They then drove to Hermitage Road, near the hardware store SAL, and at some time between 8.30pm and 8.45pm, they were approached and attacked by the complainants, who were wielding a knife and a machete.The brothers allegedly stole a BlackBerry from Kenneth William’s pocket and tore a necklace from Ms Decoute’s neck. Kenneth Williams however fought back, and in the ensuing scuffle suffered an eight-inch cut to his calf while Ms Decoute suffered black eyes and a cut to her neck.The complainants claimed that Ms Simmons accidentally hacked Ezra Williams in the arm with a machete.Making his closing speech, Crown counsel Garrett Byrne said that while there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence put forward, the statements of the complainants together with the injuries caused during the incident tell a consistent story.He acknowledged that the complainants had lied about their reasons for going to Hermitage Road, telling investigators and Magistrates’ Court that they were there to pick up a cousin before coming clean in June.However, Mr Byrne said that fact alone does not mean the complainants were not telling the truth about the matter before the court.“The important thing is that they came clean,” Mr Byrne said. “They did the right thing eventually. They didn’t have to do that.“It would be wrong and a grave injustice to forget all of their evidence because of a dumb lie.”He called the version of events described by the defendants as “completely unbelievable,” saying there was no reason for the complainants to have attacked Ezra Williams or his brother.Mr Byrne said the brothers had invented a “machete attacker” to explain the cuts they had suffered in the attack, but nothing they had said explained the injuries suffered by the complainants.He further said that while neither of the brothers were able to describe the alleged third attacker, the complainants were both able to identify all three complainants in an ID parade.Regarding a knife found in Ezra William’s home and a concealed machete found on the same property, Mr Byrne said that blood evidence was not needed to tie the items to the robbery.“Who conceals a machete?” Mr Byrne said. “Someone who has used it in a crime.”Defence attorney Charles Richardson, representing Mr Ararat, however said that the lack of any evidence other than the statements of the complainants must be considered by the jury.He noted that the complainants had admitted to lying under oath in Magistrates’ Court.“Under oath they sat there and lied,” Mr Richardson said. “They were specifically asked about it by the prosecutor at that stage. Then the defence council asked them repeatedly.“How can you trust what else they say when the other things they say are inherently contradictory.”Mr Richardson argued that the version of events put forward by the complainants were rife with inconsistencies, such as their description of which of the defendants did what during the incident, while his client’s story remained the same.He said that Mr Ararat had seen his brother being attacked by the two complainants and shoved the two away, only to be struck in the arm with a machete. He then fled the area immediately and caught a ride to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital.“The first thing he told police was that he got chopped on Hermitage Road,” Mr Richardson said. “That’s what he told the people at the hospital as soon as he got there. That’s what he told police in the interview. That’s what he has maintained all the way through.”Mr Richardson further described Kenneth William’s version of events as “something out of Marvel or DC Comics,” questioning the likelihood of a single person fighting off three armed attackers.Ezra Williams, speaking in his own defence, also dismissed the complainant’s version of events, saying there was no reason to rob them or bring a knife to the scene of the attack.“Yes, I was going to sell Ms Decoute a little poke of weed, but this was not a large amount of week or dealing with a large amount of money, so why would I have to carry a knife?” he asked. “Why would I rob them and lose a customer?“Kenneth Williams and Ms Decoute came to me. I didn’t want anything from them.”Lawyer Marc Daniels, representing Ms Simmons, asked the court to lift any prejudices they may have against his client for her past acquittal in the Kellon Hill murder trial.“If anything, that’s evidence that people can come before this court charged with serious crimes and not be guilty,” he said.“You must put aside judgments about this defendant. Nothing could be more serious. This is a court of justice. This is not a court of Bernews or public opinion.”He continued to question the accuracy and honesty of the witnesses, noting inconsistencies in their stories.“Even an honest witness can be mistaken,” Mr Daniels said. “An honest witness. The question for you is do you think either Kenneth Williams or Ms Decoute is honest at all?”Mr Daniels maintained that his client was not present during the incident, and had only attended the hospital because she had heard her friend Mr Ararat had been hurt.He suggested that the complainants may have added her to their version of events to add legitimacy to their claims.Acting Judge Juan Wolffe is expected to deliver his summation on Monday morning.