Another crew, Mr Singh, witnessed part of the incident and tried to calm down the person who we say is Mr Buck. He did not. He took hold of the gentleman - Mr Buck, we say - with both arms, and took him into the galley to be cleaned up. He went with him, slurring his words and stinking of drink. He is alleged to have said: "Him, her, all of these are on drugs and been drinking and assaulted me." So that is what he was saying in his defence at that stage.

He walked back then into First Class, muttering: "This is bullshit, this is bullshit," and in his fury bent down, grabbed the bottom of the trolley, flipped it over, sending all the breakfast paraphernalia flying - 20 side-dishes, 15 plates, 15 soup, and so forth, honey, marmalade, sugar cubes, the lot.

Two stewardesses then started picking up all this, and Mr Buck, maybe realising what an idiot he had been and what a nasty thing it was to do, then started helping, too, but as he was doing so, as he was picking --- or going to the floor, one of the stewardesses, the Crown say, saw him slip a knife up his sleeve, but it was grabbed away from him.

The captain returned. The crew now appealed to his friends to calm him down. They tried their best, but were unable to do so. The captain asked him to sit on a crew seat next to door 1. Those are the --- I am not sure which is door 1, either the right or the left side, but the crew seats are those little seats that one sees in between, for instance, 5A and the door there, I think. The defendant refused, and claimed he had been harassed by the crew and that he would be taking British Airways to court for assaulting him. He again was asked to sit down, he refused, the captain told him that if he continued the police would be called to the airport, and the defendant is alleged to have said - this gentleman is alleged to have said: "I am REM" - whether he said that or "R.E.M." - "and I can make up a story that I was assaulted." The crew, he said, were to blame for the whole incident.

His friends eventually persuaded him to sit down with them, and after going back and forth a few times he fell asleep, to everyone's relief.

Not quite the end of the story, but almost, members of the jury. At 10:50, the plane lands, three hours or so after that, and the cabin services director, who was assaulted, directed the police to where the person he claimed had assaulted him was sitting and pointed him out. The officer relayed the allegations made to Mr Buck - indeed, he asked him who he was - and Mr Buck said: "Yes, I'm Mr Buck."

When asked for an explanation, he said: "I'd had a few drinks, and so far as I can remember, I slept all the way from Seattle."

Asked if he was taking any medication, he replied that he was not.

He was arrested at 11:23 am for assault, threatening behaviour and being drunk on an aircraft. He was cautioned, told he did not have to say anything. "I understand," he said.

He was ushered off. He had difficulty in walking straight, and in one instance bumped into the wall, and one of the officers' view was that this person was still drunk, was drunk.

The police station: arrive at 12:00, and he is seen by the doctor at 1 o'clock. No medical problems, not taking any medication so far as the questions that would have been normally put by the doctor and which he would have asked, and he was obviously told no medication taken.

He said he boarded the plane the day before at 18:00 hours - that is 6 o'clock Seattle time. His last drink, he claimed and told the doctor, was at 21:30 hours - that is three-and-a-half-hours later, so on the face of it, it would seem that he remembered that he had been drinking for that time. He said within that time he had consumed four glasses of wine.

Although he was not drunk at this stage, at 13:05, according to the doctor, his breath smelt of stale alcohol, his lower coat was covered in dried yoghurt and he had slight nystagmus, which is a rapid oscillation of the eyeball movement, indicative of intoxication, and he had two red bruises on the back of his right hand - no doubt, the Crown would say, as a result perhaps of hitting the wall. Other than that, he was mentally fine, it would appear.

The doctor also saw Miss Ward at 4:20 or so - 16:24 - and she had two bruises, albeit feint, on her right lower arm. And Mario Ageas, who was still --- 16:35 he was seen (4:30), he was a little anxious and shaken. His neck was tender, and there was redness that could be seen.

The interview did not take place until 5:17, and I think before that time it seems some statements had been taken from the witnesses who had seen what had happened on the plane, and they were put to, as I understand it, the defendant in his interview. What he said - and he was, in all fairness, absolutely apologetic and could not have been more apologetic - but he did say: "I really can't remember a damn thing about this." He was told: "We really just want your side of the story - obviously we've got statements from crew members and other passengers," and the first thing he said before anything was put to him really - he had obviously been told what the allegation was on the plane before he was arrested, or at the time when he was arrested - and he says then, before the details of any statements are put to him: "I'm deeply sorry about it, first of all. I got on the plane, having worked 18-hour days, no sleep, didn't see my kids, hadn't eaten that day. I kind of decided that I'm on some sort of vacation for me even though I'm working, and I had three or four wines very quickly, and fell asleep. And the next thing I know, I was being bundled off the plane, for damage and threats, and I am completely sorry about that. Something woke me up, and I'm covered in cream" - yoghurt - "was involved, and that's all I know, because I've never done anything like this before, and I'm just appalled and shocked at my behaviour and apologetic to the people who had to deal with me."

The allegations were put, part of which I have already relayed to you, and he was told what he had allegedly been doing, and he says: "I don't remember any of this - it's so embarrassing." Question: "Do you want to comment on it?" Answer: "No - I don't remember any of it. Honestly, if someone tells me to be quiet in a movie, I'd stop breathing." Question: "Do you remember any?" Answer: "No - I'm just appalled," and so forth.

He goes on in the same vein: "I've never done anything like this in my life - I'm so --- I really want to give other people my apologies."

Then when it was put to him that the captain thought, when he came down initially and just told them off, at that point it was put to him: "He decided that it was under control" - that is the captain - "so he returned to the flight deck, because he was happy with your behaviour." That is the first time he came down. The answer to that was: "Well, how little he knew." That is what he said.

Then there was a bit about a mobile phone, and then he said: "I must have been out of my mind."

And finally, members of the jury: "There's no excuse for my behaviour. All I recall is sitting down, having two glasses of wine, and mostly was no food, no sleep, lots of stress and just trying to do two or three things at once - family, two different business things - and sleep wasn't on the picture that day, on that week, and I guess I acted like an idiot, a jerk, going on vacation - you know, a couple of quick drinks and I'll be fine. I thought I quickly fall asleep. I thought that I did, but I apparently woke up and became like a Jekyll, like Jekyll. I'm really ashamed about it." Question: "Any medication before the flight?" Answer: "No, none."

That is it, members of the jury. At that stage you may think really an open-and-shut case. Of course, he is charged with a serious offence. His defence, which he will give, is that this is not an open-and-shut case at all: "I'm not criminally responsible, owing to the fact that I was in a state of drug/alcohol-induced automatism, and prior to and/or during the flight I took up to 35 milligrams of powerful sleeping pill - Zolpidem." Apparently this was given to him by a friend the day before he was travelling, and the defendant was not told and did not appreciate that no alcohol was to be consumed in combination with the drug. The consequences of mixing the drug with the wine made him incapable of forming any criminal intent.

That is, as I understand it, the defence in this case. Quite apart from the issue --- there is an issue, clearly, on identity, which you will have to deal with.

The Crown say that even if this story may be true, it is not a defence in relation to these charges, for his intoxication was self-induced - he was reckless in the taking of the pills even if you accept what he said about that, or if what he says may be true, but he must have realised, as we all do, that sleeping pills and alcohol do not mix at the best of times.

That is my address to you.