Week 48: Bedfordshire County Council V Kit James Raj

Type of Writing: Closing defence argument in response to Kit ripping a library book and me imagining how I would respond to his fine.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I appreciate how attentively you have listened to the case these past few days; it is truly gruelling to maintain exemplary levels of concentration over such a sustained period; my client and myself would like to therefore put on record our gratitude towards you.

The theories the county have made against my client can at best be described as far-fetched, an insult to your intelligence. They have made unsubstantiated claims about my client’s behaviour, describing how he ‘attacked’ the book and ‘vandalised’ it. The county even likened my client’s behaviour to common assault. Even Donald Trump would balk at the sensationalist rhetoric the prosecution has used.

Throughout this case, the prosecution has tried to paint Kit James Raj as an out-of-control vandal. A Tasmanian devil that rips through library books with impunity. They have tried to paint his mother and father as Tiger Kings, Joe Exotics, whose home is a Wild West, where anything goes, hence the ‘amputation’ of the library’s Paddington Bear book.

Ladies and gentlemen, this painting is a forgery. It may look real but hold it up to the light and you’ll see the truth. You ladies and gentlemen are that light. You are able to discern honesty from dishonesty. The county in this case have written a fiction. Their story belongs in the library alongside Harry Potter, Jane Eye, Pride and Prejudice; alongside Lance Armstrong’s autobiography. Whereas my client and his family’s account could be found in the non-fiction section. Their story is as factual as the phone book. The county’s story as fabricated as a soap opera.

So let’s look at the prosecution’s argument. Firstly, the child deliberately tore through the book. Well, the child in question is not what you would class as a child at all. The child is a baby. A baby does not act with motive but instinct. A baby cannot be blamed for a crime they did not know they were committing. Anyway, is it even a crime? We have heard from the boy’s parents how their child likes a book. Is it not more likely then that the page accidentally ripped when he turned the page enthusiastically? Are we going to convict someone for being excited now? If so, the court should convict me – because I’m passionate about this case and I’m excited for justice!

Secondly, their other argument is that the boy’s parents are guilty of neglect. They should have interceded before the boy ripped the page. If the child isn’t guilty, they say, then the parents are.

Parents are asked to be carers, caterers, teachers, cleaners, climbing frames and Santa Clauses – and now we’re asking them to be mind-readers?

Ladies and gentlemen, parents are many things, but they are not omniscient. They are not all-knowing. They are not clairvoyants, able to see into the future. The county have read too many Marvel comics. I hate to break it to the prosecution but superheroes don’t exist in the real world. Real people don’t have superpowers, allowing them to bend time, to stop events from occurring before they’ve occurred. Kit James Raj’s parents are not to blame for the damage to the library book, nor is their son. The only thing criminal here is the behaviour of the county.

To conclude, there is only one decision you can make in this case. The decision, of course, is not guilty. A library is synonymous with quiet, but today I want you to deliver those two words with a resounding cry. ‘Not guilty’ needs to be shouted out loud today. We must never be shushed and silenced in the face of injustice. We must speak up, speak out and speak for all the babies who don’t have a voice when faced with trumped up charges. Thank you in advance for the verdict you will return.

Note: Kit wasn't fined. The librarian said, 'Don't worry we've got some good sticky tape that'll sort that out.' She was lovely. God bless the library!