All the evidence has been heard in the case of a man accused of fracturing the skull of another man with a claw hammer in Mildenhall.

Martin Quince, of Market Place in west Suffolk, is currently on trial at Ipswich Crown Court.

The 43-year-old has denied grievous bodily harm, possession of drugs and an offensive weapon after being arrested for an incident which took place on November 12 last year.

In the early hours of the morning, a husband and wife began arguing loudly in the street.

A witness, who cannot be named for legal reasons, previously told the court that Quince and another man became involved in the dispute, and that he saw Quince produce a claw hammer which he swung at the husband’s head.

In summing up the evidence on Tuesday, Judge Martyn Levett said that the victim was rendered unconscious before he hit the ground.

He received a fracture to his skull, part of which has been replaced with a titanium plate and is said to have been “profoundly” affected.

The claw hammer was discovered by police in a wheelie bin. Quince admitted that he attempted to dispose of the weapon, but denies that it was he who hit the victim with it.

Quince gave evidence that he was told by the other males to dispose of the hammer and was given a quantity of cannabis and cocaine in return. He said that before he put the hammer in the bin, it was briefly suggested that it could be hidden underneath the gravel.

The prosecution told the jury that there simply was not time for this discussion to have taken place as CCTV footage showed that the hammer was deposited in the bin around 10 seconds after the assault occurred.

“The only reason you get rid of that hammer and you get rid of it quick is because you have just used it, and Martin Quince had just used it,” he said.

It was also noted that Quince chose not to share information with police when interviewed.

Quince’s defence barrister argued that the whole incident had happened within a short space of time. Her client, she said, had some degree of vulnerability due to his addiction issues.

She suggested that the evidence the witness gave to the court could be described as “edited highlights”.

The jury is expected to reach their verdict tomorrow (Wednesday).