There was "powerful evidence" that the account given by former government chief whip Andrew Mitchell of the "Plebgate" affair was true, the High Court has heard.
Mr Mitchell's QC James Price told Mr Justice Mitting that the 58-year-old MP for Sutton Coldfield gave a clear account of his altercation with Pc Toby Rowland the day after the incident, which he had stuck to ever since.
He had stood his ground in the teeth of mounting evidence from police officers, which would have caused people less confident in the truth of their account to back-track, said counsel in his closing speech.
Mr Mitchell has sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in The Sun which he said meant he was guilty of launching a grossly offensive and arrogant attack at Downing Street police officers, branding them "f****** plebs."
NGN based its report, which it said was substantially true, on the account given by Pc Rowland who, has, in turn, sued Mr Mitchell - maintaining that statements the MP made from December 2012 falsely suggested he had fabricated his allegations.
Mr Mitchell, who resigned as chief whip a month after the altercation, denied saying: "Best you learn your f****** place - you don't run this f****** government - you're f****** plebs."
He said he would never call a policeman a pleb "let alone a f****** pleb" -although he agreed he muttered under his breath but audibly 'I thought you lot were supposed to f****** help us,' but not at the officer.
Mr Price said that although the two week trial had involved 26 live witnesses plus many volumes of documents, it came down to what was said during a 15 second exchange between two people - which was only heard by them - and their veracity.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article