Jurors are expected to begin deliberations today in the case of a lawyer accused of murdering the mother of his child.

Kamal Worrell has denied allegations of murdering Chavelle Dillon-Burgess on an unknown date between April 10 and June 11, 2020.

He has also denied a charge of wounding Ms Dillon-Burgess and a charge of common assault related to an incident on June 1, 2019, and six counts of common assault related to an incident on November 14, 2018.

Since the trial began in the Supreme Court in November, jurors heard that Ms Dillon-Burgess had accused Mr Worrell of assault in relation to incidents in 2018 and 2019.

In both cases, she had said that arguments about their son had turned physical. However, she subsequently withdrew her allegations in both cases.

On April 30, 2020, Ms Dillon-Burgess was reported missing by her family, and she has not been found.

Mr Worrell, who was living with Ms Dillon-Burgess at the time, told police that she had left the home after an argument on April 11, 2020.

He told the court that Ms Dillon-Burgess returned to the house briefly on April 16 to collect items including a phone, but he had not seen her since that date.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that while the case was built on circumstantial evidence, the jury could feel sure of Mr Worrell’s guilt.

She suggested that Mr Worrell thought Ms Dillon-Burgess was ruining his career by pressing criminal charges against him.

“She was ruining his life. He really couldn’t move on. He wasn’t living the life he felt a lawyer should be living,” she added. “He’s not bringing money into the house. She was the provider.”

Ms Clarke noted that when the offence allegedly took place, movement was extremely restricted because of Covid-19 regulations, and she urged jurors to consider Mr Worrell’s actions before, during and after Ms Dillon-Burgess’s disappearance.

She said that Ms Dillon Burgess gave consistent stories of assault when talking to her friends, family and doctor and only changed her story when she was in court with the defendant in the room with her.

Ms Clarke said: “Do you think she was really lying? Or was she trying to stop the attacks the only way she knew how, to do what the defendant told her to do.”

Mr Worrell said the prosecution’s case was built on speculation and argued that police failed to follow up on potential leads during their investigation.

He said that while Ms Dillon-Burgess did make complaints of domestic violence against him, she had later recanted under oath and said that she had lied.

Mr Worrell added that there was nothing in the phone record to support any claims of violence or any coercion by him to try to convince her to withdraw the allegations.

“There is not a single text from her to me, or from me to her, which would even suggest that I had been violent,” he said.

Mr Worrell told the court that he loved Ms Dillon-Burgess and maintained that, despite the allegations against him, he was not a violent man.

“It’s unfortunate for justice in this country they have brought this case without evidence,” he said. “It’s for the prosecutor to prove their case because from the start they didn’t have a case to prove. They didn’t even have a date when it happened.”

Mr Worrell and Ms Clarke made closing statements last week.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe, who is presiding over the case, delivered a summary of the evidence this week in advance of the jury being sent out to consider its verdict.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case