Ryan Giggs: It's time for him to pay the price, jury told

The truth has caught up to Ryan Giggs and it's time for him to "pay the price", a jury has been told.

The former Manchester United star, 48, denies controlling behaviour, as well as assaulting ex-girlfriend Kate Greville, 38, in November 2020.

He also denies assaulting her younger sister Emma, 26.

Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said messages sent by Mr Giggs told a story of "emotional manipulation, physical excess and control and coercion".

Chris Daw QC, defending, said putting one of the leading prosecution barristers of the last 40 years, Mr Wright, against Mr Giggs, a man of "limited" education, was not an "equal match".

In his closing speech at Manchester Crown Court, Mr Wright reiterated that there were "two very different Ryan Giggs".

"The one who is exposed for public consumption and the Ryan Giggs who exists on occasion behind closed doors," he added.

Mr Wright said Mr Giggs "thought he could do whatever he liked" to Ms Greville and that he would "get away with it".

"But all that changed on the night of 1 November when the basis upon which he operated disintegrated before his very eyes," he said.

"Eventually it had caught up with him... and he has no-one else to blame for it but himself."

Mr Wright reminded the jury of the 999 call made by Ms Greville's sister Emma following the alleged assault.

He described the call - in which Mr Giggs can be heard in the background saying Ms Greville caused the incident - as a "microcosm of the entire case".

Mr Wright said the call was made within moments of the incident having taken place.

"What a remark," he said. "Not, it was an accident, I didn't mean it."

Mr Wright went on to say that this is a case about what Mr Giggs is not known for, "what lies beneath the surface of… his character".

"It's about the abuse of power," he argued.

Mr Wright said that speaking out had been "cathartic" for Ms Greville, and asked the jury to consider how she responded when various matters were put to her, irrespective of the "deeply embarrassing" material she was being asked to consider.

He asked the jury if this was a woman who was "scheming", or a woman who was "now empowered" and able to speak out.

Mr Wright went on to ask the jury to consider why Mr Giggs did not have answers to so many questions. The answer, he said, was that he had "no sensible explanation to give."

"The truth was so damaging and so telling… that the "only alternative" was of "not giving an explanation".

'Polite paragon of public behaviour'

Mr Wright said Mr Giggs was the "living embodiment" of the contradictions in the case, from "hate-filled outburst of bile" to the very same woman he had, "sometimes only moments earlier", professed to "love in perpetuity".

Reminding the jury about emails in which he calls Ms Greville by a deeply unpleasant name, Mr Wright said this was what Mr Giggs, a "polite paragon of public behaviour", was capable of.

"Even now he can't explain why he sent it," he said, because, to do so would "reveal the coercive and controlling nature of his conduct".

Mr Wright then invited the jury to "compare and contrast" the "calm and co-operative Ryan Giggs" who dealt with the police at his house on 1 November 2020 with what they had heard in the 999 call.

In his closing speech for the defence, Mr Daw said the jury may have felt that watching Mr Giggs being cross-examined in the witness box was like watching a "blood sport".

He said that Mr Giggs was a man of "limited education" who was at times "embarrassed" to admit he did not understand some of the questions.

"Whatever you make if all of that… keep in mind it is not up to him to prove his innocence," Mr Daw added.

He was "hampered" by the "lack of the right words", said Mr Daw, adding: "None of that means he is guilty of anything."

Mr Daw then moved on to what Mr Giggs is and is not on trial for.

"He is not on trial for being flirtatious," he said, or for being a "compulsive womaniser" or for being a "no-good heartbreaker".

"If they were crimes, he probably would be guilty for at least some of them," he said.

He added that in some places, like Saudi Arabia and Somalia, infidelity is against the law and people can be executed. He reminded the jury that this trial is taking place "in England".

"It is about the criminal charges of controlling behaviour and assault."

He highlighted that on 1 November 2020, Ms Greville and her sister had said Mr Giggs had gone to his neighbour's house to paint himself as a victim.

But Mr Daw said the evidence of the neighbour Linda Cheung was clear: "He did ask her to call the police."

He added there was "no evidence" that Mr Giggs had "controlled any part" of Ms Greville's life.

Mr Daw also asked the jury if it made any sense that Ms Greville was, in a series of messages, asking for "rough sex" at a time when, as she had told the jury, he was being "violent and controlling".

Commenting on Ms Greville's sister Emma's evidence, Mr Daw said she had told the court the headbutt on Ms Greville was done with "major force" and that Ms Greville had described a "huge, deliberate headbutt".

"Just think about it," said Mr Daw. "A major-force headbutt to the face that only causes a small injury to the lip area?

"We suggest it cannot have happened", he said.

He ended by reminding them Mr Giggs had never been in trouble with the police.

"Please give very fair consideration to good character," he added.

Earlier, Judge Hilary Manley told the jury they had to decide the case on the evidence and that they must decide "whether a witness was a truthful witness".

If there were "inaccuracies" they must consider if they matter "in the overall context of the case", she said.

Judge Manley went on to say that both Kate Greville and former Wales manager Mr Giggs became distressed while giving their evidence, but she said they must "put aside any sympathy".

She reminded jurors of what she had told them at the start of the case: that they must put aside any emotion.

The trial continues.