closing arguments were given in Family Court yesterday.

The students, aged 15 and 13, have been at the centre of a community uproar stemming from a March 4 confrontation in the school yard.

As a result of the incident, the teacher sustained numerous cuts and bruises to his face.

Because of a ruling set out by Magistrate Cheryl Ann Mapp, the students cannot be named, nor can The Royal Gazette publish any information that may lead to their identification including the names of witnesses, the school, or the victim.

Defence counsel Victoria Pearman told the court during closing arguments that the prosecution had not produced "one shred of evidence'' proving that her client, the older student, was responsible for assaulting the teacher.

The defence showed graphic pictures of injuries sustained by the teacher when he was treated at hospital, but maintained that the injuries occurred when the teacher hit the ground -- and not from an assault by the student.

She mentioned previous testimony by a witness who said they saw the teacher fall, but claimed the teacher was not injured in the way the pictures showed until after he hit the ground.

Ms Pearman added that the testimony was consistent with the types of scrapes and abrasions the teacher had on his face which could not have been caused by the student "unless he had sandpaper wrapped around his hand''.

Crown counsel JoDina Pearman stated in her closing arguments that the panel should keep in mind the testimony from the most important witnesses.

She reminded the panel that these witnesses previously testified that one of the students punched the teacher in the face and kicked him in the stomach.

She added that witnesses indicated one of the students elbowed the teacher to the ground, and the teacher's injuries were caused at that time.

Sentencing is scheduled for August 28.