on accused killer Kevin Pollock today.

Prosecution and defence lawyers finished their cases yesterday, leaving Acting Chief Justice Norma Wade-Miller to sum up this morning.

Then the jury will be sent out to decide the fate of restaurant manager Pollock, a 36-year-old Englishman who denies manslaughter.

He is accused of pushing 51-year-old Craig McGavern down stairs in the Emporium Building on Front Street as the customer was being escorted out last July.

But Pollock claims he stooped under an oncoming punch, with Mr. McGavern tumbling after the clash.

Crown counsel Patrick Doherty, leading the prosecution case, told the jury Pollock's claim of self-defence "doesn't apply''.

He said Mr. McGavern was "drunk and obnoxious'', but stressed no Crown witnesses saw him throw a punch.

Turning to the eight-man, four-woman jury, he said: "Maybe some of you at some point in your lives have been in a state such as that.

"Are you going to say that it's OK for someone to lose their cool and chuck you down the stairs?'' He said claims of provocation and self-defence were "straw men'' which should not prevent a guilty verdict.

And he admitted Mr. McGavern behaved like "a jerk'' before the incident, but insisted he was no "gunslinger with a cold, icy stare''.

Mr. Doherty added: "You can't push someone off a cliff because they are about to punch you. It's excessive.

"If Mr. Pollock was acting in self-defence, why not go to the side, why not go backwards, why not have the bouncers deal with it? Why choose the most lethal option...driving him backwards down the stairs?'' The prosecution lawyer asked the jury if it was "just a coincidence'' that Pollock and defence witness Steven DeSilva, a Flanagan's bouncer, gave similar Police statements, only for their stories to change in court.

"There's real concern that there's been some collusion here,'' said Mr.

Doherty, saying claims that Mr. McGavern threw a punch were not made to Police and were not put to prosecution witnesses.

"You have to be really, really suspicious about what the accused has said on these points,'' he added. Mr. Doherty even said the evidence of one of his own witnesses -- Mr. McGavern's son Nick -- could be disregarded as he had drunk "an awful lot of alcohol'' on the night.

"I'm not saying it's easy to deal with a drunk, aggressive person,'' he added. "That doesn't give you the right to be aggressive with them and careless and go over the top in your actions.'' Mr. Pettingill, leading Pollock's defence, said the fall was like President Kennedy's assassination -- seen in freeze frames with nobody sure what happened.

He told the jury: "You must be sure that this man Kevin Pollock is a killer.

"Was it a push? Was it a rugby tackle? Were his hands up? Were his hands down? Was it at the left of the steps? Was it at the right of the steps? Was Mr. McGavern threatening or did he do nothing at all?'' He explained that his witnesses' evidence did not tally "word for word'' with Police statements, adding: "Can you remember what you heard last Tuesday?'' But he insisted: "Nobody's trying to stitch Mr. Pollock up by lying. Nobody's trying to get Mr. Pollock off by lying. So how did we end up with such a mish-mash? "It's like the Kennedy thing. Nobody's sure.'' Mr. Pettingill said: "Was Mr. McGavern out for a nice evening with his son? What type of evening was it? "He certainly didn't deserve to die in any circumstances. But who created this moment here? Who created the threats and the tension? "Was he ambushed on the way out by Kevin Pollock? Everybody saw something.

Nobody got everything right.'' And he asked the jury to consider if the defendant was provoked.

"Did Mr. McGavern do something to prompt that action from Mr. Pollock?'' he said, adding that the accused could not "measure to a nicety'' his own self-defence in the clash.

Mr. Pettingill also reminded the jury that Mr. McGavern was returning to the bar to look for lost sunglasses after his son Nick had been in a fight with another manager.

He added: "Was he looking for sunglasses or was he looking for trouble? I ask you to vindicate Kevin Pollock and to come back with the right judgment which is one of not guilty.'' The case continues.

COURTS CTS