At Oxford Crown Court today (Monday), prosecutor David Bright and Terence Woods, defending, summed up the trial of Ian Holland.

Mr Holland, 33, of Edinburgh Way, Banbury, is charged with the attempted murder of Adam Dickson and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Mr Dickson suffered serious multiple injuries including a fractured skull after the 3.15am attack on the driveway of his parents Adderbury home on June 17 last year.

Mr Bright believes Mr Holland is responsible for inflicting the injuries because he wrongly believed Mr Dickson was the new boyfriend of his former lover, Lisa Cebral.

He claims Mr Holland had been secretly watching Mr Dickson enjoy an early morning drink at Miss Cebral's King's Sutton home after he dropped her off following a night out with friends in Banbury.

An intruder wearing a face mask had been seen prowling around Miss Cebral's garden just hours earlier and as Mr Dickson sat in her home,

Miss Cebral received about three hoax phone calls to her landline "as if someone was watching me".

Mr Bright said: "The prosecution's case is that Mr Holland's past and present behaviour shows he is a man of such character and temperament he is capable of such an attack.

"The prosecution submit he is a man that has been proved as violent and jealous in nature, having used threats of violence and actual violence towards female partners.

"Indeed he uttered threats to kill any new boyfriends."

Mr Bright highlighted evidence given by Mr Holland's friend Tom Smith, who admitted the pair and another friend had been in King's Sutton just hours before the attack.

Mr Smith insisted he had instigated the visit for personal reasons and not to visit Miss Cebral, although Mr Bright said it did place Mr Holland in the area.

Mr Bright also made reference to Mr Holland's contradictory evidence and his failure to make any reference to his pal David Parker prior to the trial.

Mr Holland said he gave his mobile phone handset - but not his SIM card - to Mr Parker just hours before the attack claiming calls made after 2am - including those to Miss Cebral - were made by Mr Parker.

An note providing an alibi was found at the Parker's Fringford home during a police search of the property detailing an evening of times and events. It had Mr Holland's finger prints on it.

Mr Bright also questioned the behaviour of Mr Holland as police began closing in.

"Mr Holland set to evade police and on seeing them he ran away from them. Is that the behaviour of an innocent man?" he asked.

Turning to the jury, Mr Bright named Mr Holland as Mr Dickson's attacker and said he had intended to kill him as he left his victim dying without help.

He said: "The attacker struck very suddenly and it would seem without warning. Nothing was heard by the parents (Roy and Janet Dickson] until the single shout which was probably a cry as their son was struck.

"The assailant left Adam Dickson lying there, the blood oozing out on the ground."

No forensic or scientific evidence linking Mr Holland to the assault was ever found by the police.

In his case summary, Mr Woods emphasised the importance for the prosecution to prove guilt, added it was not up to the defence to prove innocence.

He said in addition to the lack of forensic evidence, Mr Holland has also not been identified as being at the homes of Mr Dickson or Miss Cebral.

"No trace of Adam Dickson's blood was found in Mr Holland's vehicle when it was seized by police at the time of the arrest," he said.

"No scientific link exist between the defendant the scene of the crime.

"And there is no link between any clothing seized from the defendant and the scene of the crime."

Mr Woods questioned whether Mr Holland had been blamed for the attack as the police had failed to follow up other lines of inquiry, including Mr Parker.

He spoke of two men seen near the crime scene whose clothes did not match those Mr Holland was seen wearing on Banbury CCTV cameras less than one hour later.

Mr Woods said no evidence had been presented to eliminate the two men - seen by Mr Dickson's parents - from the investigation.

"Something I ask you to think very carefully about in this case is that because of what had happened in the past between the defendant and Lisa Cebral, Mr Holland was the prime suspect," said Mr Woods.

"It maybe in this case the police fell into the trap of focusing their attention on him and not pursuing other lines of inquiry.

"The police very quickly formed a view it was the defendant who was responsible for the attack."

Raising the issue of the mobile phone Mr Woods reminded the jury Mr Holland had not been in possession of it as Mr Parker had taken it from him at 2am.

He recalled evidence which showed a call was made to Mr Holland's own phone number less than 20 minutes before the attack.

Mr Woods also dismissed evidence which placed the phone in King's Sutton and Adderbury at crucial points of the night and early morning, reminding the jury phone masts can cover an extensive geographical area.

He said: "The cell site analysis of the mobile phone evidence does not in anyway pin point with accuracy where the SIM card was at any given time on the night when this happened."

Mr Woods concluded although new issues had come to light during the trial - including the presence of Mr Parker and the mobile phone - Mr Holland has maintained his defence of not being at the scene of the crime when the attack took place.

The 11 jurors are expected to begin making a decision on the charges tomorrow (Tuesday). The twelfth juror was dismissed this morning after unwittingly coming into contact with a witness through his occupation
as a taxi driver.

The trial continues.