A WITNESS was called back into court today to clarify his evidence after it emerged a defendant on trial shared his full name with another family member.

Witness Michael Hughes, 46, returned to Cardiff Crown Court to clarify his evidence in the trial of four men accused of requiring another to perform forced or compulsory labour, between April 2010 and January 2013.

The defendants, who all deny the allegations, are Patrick Joseph Connors, 59, his son Patrick Dean Connors, 39, both of Greenway Road, Rumney, Cardiff, William Connors, 36, of Trowbridge Green, Cardiff and Lee Christopher Carbis, 34, of Witla Court Road, Rumney.

Some of the offences were alleged to have occurred in Peterstone, Wentlooge, near Newport and Marshfield.

The court heard that Mr Hughes had re-appeared for the purposes of identifying William Connors over an allegation of assault.

Prosecuting, John Hipkin, sought to clarify the length of time to which the claimant had known Billy Connors.

He said: “How long had you known that Billy Connors for?”

Mr Hughes responded by saying he had known him for 12 to 13 years and later provided the court with a detailed description of the Billy Connors he was referring to.

“He is about 5’10” or 5’11”, with a shaved, bald head, a v-shaped nose, blue eyes and of medium build,” said Mr Hughes.

Defending Williams Connors, Terence Woods, also sought clarification over which Billy Connors the claimant was referring to.

The court heard how Mr Woods revealed the emergence of a second man of the same name, who Mr Hughes had occasionally worked for.

Mr Woods said: “It is a popular name within the Connors family, as popular as Patrick or Paddy.”

Mr Hughes responded: “Yes, but each one is distinctive.”

The court heard that Mr Hughes worked for a number of different Irishmen during his involvement with the defendants.

“You said you had worked for quite a few different Irishmen,” said Mr Woods, to which Mr Hughes said: “Yes.”

Following the questioning of Mr Hughes by Mr Woods, the prosecution closed its case against the defendants, with the defence testimonies scheduled to begin at the next sitting of the trial.

Proceeding.