THE lawyer for Scott Castle urged jurors to consider the ‘full picture’ when deliberating the verdict of causing or allowing the death of the baby he wanted to adopt.

The BAE worker is charged with causing or allowing the death of Leiland-James who died in January 2021, a day after suffering brain injuries at the home of the Castles.

In his closing argument, Mr Castle's lawyer Simon Kealey QC said his client was asleep upstairs after a night shift when the boy was fatally injured downstairs.

Mr Kealey told the court there was ‘nothing out of the ordinary’ when Mr Castle returned home from work.

READ MORE: Laura Castle will forever be known as 'baby killer' - court told

"There was certainly no indication of significant risk of serious physical alarm which Scott Castle ought to have been aware of,” he told the court.

In referring to text messages exchanged between Mr and Mrs Castle in September 2021, Mr Kealey told jurors they ‘may be horrified, maybe revolted’.

"But this case requires more than simply being revolted,” he continued.

“It's not enough to establish the charges of allowing the death of a child or child cruelty."

The barrister asked jurors to treat the messages with a 'degree of caution'.

He said the prosecution pointed to the ‘rude and derogatory’ Mrs Castle messages sent in September 2021 as evidence Mr Castle should have known Leiland-James was at risk of harm but the death happened more than three months later, which was ‘absolutely critical’.

Live updates from Leiland Corkill trial: Day Ten

"We are looking back to events and hindsight of course is a great thing,” Mr Kealey said to the court.

Scott Castle has accepted the words used in messages between himself and Laura were 'shameful', said his defence, and he has not tried to justify them.

The predominant pattern was Mr Castle asking 'how the children are' from work via messages, Mr Kealey told jurors.

"It's clear from those messages that [Scott] was trying to appease [Laura], make her feel a little bit better about herself, to indicate he understood her frustration,” the court heard.

"How? By using the same bad language. An appeasement fits the type of person he was.

"He was not wanting argument or confrontation, he wanted the opposite."

Mr Castle's barrister says there were many messages 'venting [Laura's] frustration' which were 'not the literal truth' but 'turns of phrase', which Mr Castle describes as 'deeply embarrassing'.

Mr Kealey told the court Mr Castle 'didn't see' the extent of shouting, or even smacking, at home and ‘trusted’ his wife.

He said to jurors that the events of January 6 were entirely 'unforeseeable' and the upmost importance to [Mr Castle’s] case is his 'good character', the court heard.

"Were it not for those foul messages, he probably wouldn't be here today,” Mr Kealey said in his closing argument.

"A loving and devoted father devastated by the loss of Leiland-James.”

Mr Kealey’s asked jurors to consider 'the full picture' and invited them to return verdicts of not guilty.