Lawyers gave their closing speeches yesterday in the trial of two prisoners accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent on a fellow inmate.

The prosecution in the case of Kenneth Burgess and Kamel Trott says even without DNA, there is enough evidence to convict the pair of attacking Dennis Robinson.

The defence however, says there are "inconsistencies" in Robinson's testimony and a T-shirt bearing splatters of his blood may have belonged to another inmate.

Robinson and Burgess were jointly convicted of murdering the twins Jahmal and Jahmil Cooper in a trial two years ago. According to the prosecution, the alleged prison attack was the result of Burgess blaming Robinson for his incarceration.

Trott, 32, was sentenced in 2006 to three years for unlawful wounding with intent, in a separate incident.

On June 6, 2007, it is alleged he joined Burgess, 36, in a pre-meditated assault on Robinson, 38, at Westgate Correctional Facility where they are all inmates.

The prosecution says the pair ambushed Robinson in his cell in an hour-long attack which left him with several injuries including a broken jaw and fractured eye socket.

The attack is alleged to have taken place during a recreation break, with Robinson claiming his attackers pulled a table up outside his cell to play cards while he was trapped inside. A prison guard then discovered the injured Robinson as he made his lockup rounds after the break.

During the two-week trial, Robinson has said Burgess threatened to kill him during the attack, telling him to write an affidavit exonerating him of blame in the Cooper twins' case ahead of an appeal. He said Burgess threatened to harm his three-year-old daughter if he did not comply.

However, the Supreme Court also heard that sealed cells containing evidence were possibly disturbed days after the attack. A prison officer noticed a cereal bowl and Walkman had been removed from Trott's cell.

The jury also heard prison officers had made unauthorised visits to Burgess' and Trott's cells although they were supposed to be secured.

Summing up the prosecution case yesterday, Rory Field, Director of Public Prosecutions, said during the attack, the cheekbones to the left of Robinson's face were "essentially pulverised" from repeated blows.

Mr. Field said: "The question of whether this man received grievous bodily harm is a fairly simple one. What the case is about is, who gave him that grievous bodily harm? If you are satisfied it was these two individuals, then what was their intent?

"Given the sustained beating and the threats to kill during the beating, it was their intent to do him serious injury."

Mr. Field said Burgess and Trott "wouldn't have necessarily thought they would have been complained about, and that it would have been taken to such a degree by the authorities".

"Neither have Burgess and Trott any kind of alibi at all for the time this happened," he said.

Mr. Field added: "When you think about how closely they worked together, Trott is with Burgess the whole time. I suggest his intent was clearly to be party and help beat Robinson into a pulp."

Commenting on DNA evidence linking blood on Trott's T-shirt to Robinson, he said: "Robinson's cell was locked down after the fight and Robinson was taken to hospital. You can't plant it because it was not available.

"There is no other way of that happening than him being in contact with Robinson's blood. Unfortunately for Mr. Trott that piece of evidence finishes his case."

He said Robinson's blood was also found on a vest in Trott's cell and a T-shirt belonging to Burgess – found by the desk of Burgess' cell.

But Mr. Field added: "This case doesn't even require DNA. There's enough evidence to convict the two defendants without it, but of course we do have the DNA as an addition."

Mr. Field said Trott had also spread a rumour in Westgate, claiming he had seen Robinson perform an oral sex act on another inmate in 2005, and that "Robinson is a woman and gives oral sex".

"It tells you a lot of things about what kind of person Trott is – vindictive, dishonest and a liar," Mr. Field told the jury.

"I suggest he just created this allegation simply to have a reason why Robinson might possibly blame him as well. It's a blatant lie on oath to you, and one which has the added benefit of dirtying Robinson's name when the newspapers run his name in prison."

Burgess' defence lawyer Elizabeth Christopher however, says that rather than Burgess having a grudge against Robinson, it was the other way round.

She admitted neither defendant was a "paragon of virtue" but that Robinson had been involved in two other incidents at Westgate.

"He has been involved in fights before and has lied about how these injuries were sustained," she said.

"Our case was that Mr. Burgess was not responsible."

She said the T-shirt was not his, but was "from another inmate".

"The Crown has no evidence whatsoever that the white T-shirt belonged to Mr. Burgess," said Ms Christopher.

She said it could have been "planted" by another inmate, and that security on the cell doors following the incident was lax.

"Even with the best of locks things can go missing," she said.

"Even without Mr. Burgess' evidence the Crown's case doesn't pass muster. This T-shirt evidence is pathetic."

Richard Horseman, defending Trott, said the cells were not secured properly and that the Police "didn't come until the 13th or 14th".

"These cells were compromised and so the evidence taken from those cells was also compromised," he said.

Commenting on the incident, he added: "There are no third-party witnesses. It's one person's word against another."

Mr. Horseman said Robinson had inconsistencies in his account of what happened. Robinson said Burgess had approached him earlier that morning, but Burgess and prison officer Marlon Brown had said Robinson had approached him.

"There is conflicting evidence right there," said Mr. Horseman.

He added: "Dennis Robinson is trying to portray these two have pushed the table right to the door so he can't get out. But officer Brown said Mr. Trott moved the table away.

"Dennis Robinson said: 'That table was moved closer to my cell' but everybody else said: 'No, it wasn't, it was moved away'."

Mr. Horseman also questioned the timeframe of the incident. He said: "Dennis Robinson said the card game started shortly after Mr. Trott came back and continued until after he left, so if that is the case, where is the chance for them to go into the cell? Because you've got to believe that for over an hour Dennis Robinson is getting pummelled in his cell by these two and the timeframe, the window, is not there.

"It couldn't have happened in the timeframe."

He also pointed to a lack of CCTV video evidence: "It should concern you the CCTV videos weren't rolling that day. Those cameras should have been rolling, they should have been the evidence put there before you," said Mr. Horseman.

"You see pieces of evidence relevant to this case are disappearing by the bucket load."

He added: "When you look at Robinson's evidence, it's contradicting left, right and centre."

The case continues.