And with that, the trial is over for the day and for the week.

It will resume in courtroom one in Newcastle Crown Court on Tuesday morning.

Before they left for the bank holiday weekend, Mrs Justice Lambert, the high court judge presiding over the case, tells jurors they must not talk to anyone about the case or conduct any of their own research.

At the beginning of the trial on Monday, she told them they had to set all emotion aside and reach verdicts purely on what they saw and heard within the four walls of the courtroom.

Erica Witherington
Reporting from Newcastle Crown Court

Daniel Graham has spent just over three hours giving evidence today.

He was on his feet in the witness box with a large file of evidence in front of him, taking frequent sips from a cup of water.

Meanwhile, in the glass-fronted dock, Adam Carruthers was sitting leaning forwards very low down, with the top of his head only just visible.

There were some tense exchanges between Mr Graham and prosecutor Richard Wright KC, while Mr Graham had earlier claimed it seemed as if Mr Carruthers' barrister Andrew Gurney wanted to just argue with him rather than ask questions.

The day ended with Mr Graham exasperated at being asked the "same question" by Mr Wright, declaring: "I've had enough. Just go on to the next question."

It was that point the judge intervened, saying it had "clearly" been a "long day".

Mr Graham says it was "most likely" he did challenge Mr Carruthers about the video and photos he found on his phone that morning.

But, he said, he could not remember exactly.

When pressed by Mr Wright, he says he did not ask more questions because the tree was "not my problem", adding: "You keep asking me about time, I can't answer you, I've had enough.

"I cannot give you a word-for-word conversation either, it's too far away."

Mr Wright says it has been a long day and it was hot in court, so agreed to move on, with the intention of returning to the topic when the trial resumes on Tuesday.

Mr Graham says Mr Carruthers called him at about 09:20 that morning and told him he had chopped down the tree.

He says he did not believe him.

Mr Wright says by that point Mr Graham would have known his car had been taken and returned, the global media was reporting on the tree being felled an Mr Carruthers was telling him he did it.

"Are you really telling us you still thought he was [making it up]?" Mr Wright asks.

Mr Graham says Mr Carruthers told "a thousand stories" of things he had supposedly done, adding he tried to "impress people".

He says his reply to media stories of "here we go" was him saying he did not believe Mr Carruthers, rather than getting ready for the reaction to the tree being felled as has been alluded to by prosecutors.

We have now resumed and Mr Wright is asking Mr Graham about his phone and finding it on the morning of 28 September.

The prosecutor says the day before Mr Graham had told Mr Carruthers there would be a storm that night which could generate lot of tree surgery work for them, telling him get the "saws warmed up".

Mr Graham would later tell police a storm for his line of work was "like Christmas for taxi drivers".

Mr Wright asks him then, wouldn't he have wanted to have his phone on him as soon as possible on 28 September to respond to business calls.

Mr Graham says the work would not have been immediate, for example there would be jobs for insurance companies that would come in later, and he already had a job planned for that morning so did not need to find immediate work.

When asked again when exactly he got his phone and found the video of the alleged felling, Mr Graham replies: "Just to get rid of the same question you keep asking me, at some point that morning."

Court is now just taking a break, with Mr Graham having been under cross-examination for an hour and a half.

Mr Wright was just asking him about the morning after, what time Mr Graham got up and when he got his phone and found the video of the alleged felling.

Mr Graham says he cannot recall such details so long after the event, telling the prosecutor: "You stand there and pull all the faces you want, it's not going to help me remember."

Mr Graham is asked why whoever felled the tree took his car to get to the scene.

"It was a 4x4," Mr Graham replies.

Asked if he believed someone was trying to make it look like he was responsible, Mr Graham says: "I don't know what their intentions were."

Earlier in the day of the felling, someone searched for the Met Office and weather warnings on Mr Graham's phone, Mr Wright says.

The prosecutor has already said the wind would have assisted whoever felled the tree as it would have pushed the tree northbound, helping it fall across the wall.

When asked who used his phone to make the search, Mr Graham replies: "I wouldn't know. It wasn't me."

We have just received some of the photos shown to the jury today.

They include a picture taken by Mr Graham of his co-accused Mr Carruthers holding some owls, the significance being there were chainsaws next to him.

There is also a picture taken by Mr Graham of he and Mr Carruthers doing tree surgery.

Image source, CPS

Image source, CPS

Image source, CPS

Mr Wright asks Mr Graham about letting people use his mobile phone.

"Anyone is welcome to use my phone," he says.

The prosecutor points Mr Graham to his first police interview in which he said nobody else used the phone unless they were with him at work.

Mr Graham replies he meant anyone that he worked with would know the passcode for his phone, including Mr Carruthers.

He said Mr Wright was maybe more educated than him and was "trying to make a fool" of him, but the phone had been left in the Range Rover and Adam Carruthers had access to both.

Asked if Mr Carruthers had been "lucky" the phone was in the Range Rover, Mr Graham says it was lucky for him but "unlucky for me because it's put me in this situation".

Mr Graham agrees he has machinery worth hundreds of thousands pounds in his yard.

So, Mr Wright, asks, what about security? Mr Graham says he has gates to keep his dogs and horses in but does not lock them, so anyone could come in.

He claims he was asleep in his caravan the whole night and never heard anyone taking or returning his car.

Mr Wright asks if Mr Graham's dog would have "gone berserk" and barked loudly if anyone came into his yard.

Mr Graham confirms he has a "large and vocal dog" but he did not hear it bark.

Asked if his dog is "deaf" and could therefore not have heard someone in the yard, Mr Graham says it was a windy and noisy night, although says the prosecution barrister has probably never been in a caravan so wouldn't know what that was like.

Mr Wright confirms he has indeed been in a caravan.

Mr Graham also says the caravan is a long way from the gates and his car was parked outside the yard, adding even if the dog had heard Mr Carruthers it would not have barked as it knew him and would have recognised his voice.

Mr Graham claims he had never heard of the tree until 2021 when Mr Carruthers told him about it.

But he admits he reported a car stolen from the Steel Rigg Car park, the nearest car park to the tree, in December 2020, months before he had the conversation with Mr Carruthers.

When challenged again about his claim he had not heard of the tree before 2021 by Mr Wright, Mr Graham says he had used the car park to go for walks with his dogs but not visited the tree.

"Just because I know the car park it doesn’t mean I know about the tree" he says.

"This is the most famous tree in the world 40 minutes down the road [from Mr Graham's home] and you didn’t realise the car park you reported your car stolen from was the car park for the Sycamore Gap tree?" Mr Wright asks.

Mr Graham replies: "Correct, yeah."

Mr Graham says he had seen Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, a 1992 movie in which the tree appeared, but did not know where it was.

He insists he had not heard of the "legendary tree" before 2021 when Mr Carruthers told him about it, adding: "I had no interest, I cut trees down, I don’t collect them."

Asked by Mr Wright if Mr Carruthers had a "fascination" with the tree, Mr Graham replies yeah.

He says he had never heard of the tree until Mr Carruthers told him about in 2021 when Mr Carruthers showed him a piece of string said to be the same circumference as the trunk.

Mr Graham says Mr Carruthers described it as the most famous tree in the world and "mentioned" cutting it down, but Mr Graham thought that was a "joke" and "not a serious conversation".

He says Mr Carruthers had a "strange interest in a lot of things".

Mr Graham tells Mr Wright he was only trained in felling small and medium trees.

But he says he can explain the hinge and wedge technique used to fell the tree.

Mr Wright asks if that night was a good one to fell the tree because a storm was coming and the wind was blowing from south to north, meaning the feller would be assisted by the elements in ensuring the tree fell northwards across the wall.

Mr Graham says he "wouldn't personally need the wind to fell a tree" but he agrees it would have helped, reducing the need for equipment such as wedges to keep the cut tree open.

Now prosecutor Richard Wright KC is cross-examining Mr Graham.

The prosecutor starts by asking what the pair agree on.

"Do you agree Adam Carruthers cut down the tree at Sycamore Gap?" Mr Wright asks.

"I do yeah," Mr Graham replies, going on to also agree Mr Carruthers caused "irreparable damage" to the tree and harm to the wall.

He also says Mr Carruthers' skill and experience made him "capable" of doing the deed, while he also possessed the equipment.

Mr Graham also agrees there must have been at least two people there, with one filming while the other cut the tree.

Mr Graham then denies he was, as Mr Wright puts it, the "second man in the team".

The court has heard numerous searches were made on Mr Graham's phone in the days afterwards for information on the felling and updates on the police investigation.

Daniel Graham says he was making the searches while he was sitting with Mr Carruthers, who was telling him what had happened.

He also says he told police that Mr Carruthers had firearms in the anonymous call because officers should have been aware of that.

Asked if he was trying to exaggerate the case against Mr Carruthers and get him in more trouble, Mr Graham says he had "no reason to get him in more trouble than he was in".

He is asked if he was trying to get himself out of trouble, to which Mr Graham replies: "I don’t need to get myself out of trouble because I haven't done anything.

Mr Gurney says Mr Graham's claim that Mr Carruthers had a piece of string which was the circumference of the tree which they discussed was a "complete fabrication".

Mr Graham says it seems everything he says is a lie, adding: "I know it happened and [Mr Carruthers] knows."

Mr Gurney says he is indeed suggesting "everything out of your mouth is untrue", to which Mr Graham replies that's what the barrister is paid to do.

Mr Graham says his account has not changed, the only difference was when he named Mr Carruthers which he had not wanted to do at the outset.

When the judge intervenes to tell Mr Gurney to ask questions, Mr Graham replies: "I don’t feel he is asking questions, I feel he is wanting an argument."

Mr Gurney asks Mr Graham: "At what point, when you are such good friends, did you turn on [Mr Carruthers]?"

Mr Graham says it was when his business started to suffer because of the accusations, with him having to remove his name from his vehicles and wagons or they would be targeted.

He says he went to Mr Carruthers' home one night, taking him a milkshake as he normally did, and told him "we were no longer friends," adding: "I would go my way he could go his way.

"That was the last time I spoke to Adam."

Mr Graham says he gave other people the passcode to his phone, the one taken on the night to Sycamore Gap on which the moment of the felling was allegedly filmed.

He says he gave the code to people he trusted, including Mr Carruthers, and denied keeping the phone on him and private to avoid his partner seeing conversations with other people he wanted to keep hidden.

He says said other people could use his vehicles.

After about an hour and a half of questions from his own barrister, Mr Graham is now being questioned by Andrew Gurney, the barrister for Adam Carruthers.

Mr Gurney starts by saying it is simply not true Mr Carruthers and his friend attempted to persuade Mr Graham to take the blame.

"It's 110% true," Mr Graham says.

Mr Gurney asks if everything Mr Graham says is true, to which the defendant replies: "Yes."