Summary
Our youth client was charged with a six-count indictment following an incident of group violence which had resulted in a murder and an attempted murder. At the close of the Prosecution’s case in the 31-day trial, our team submitted a no case to answer argument for four of the charges. Thanks to the strength of our representations, our client was acquitted of these four charges, with a 12-month referral order imposed for the remaining two.
Details of the Incident
Two groups were involved in a physical altercation involving knives were ultimately, one victim was fatally stabbed and another was wounded. Our client was 15 at the time of this incident and was involved as part of one of these groups. It was an individual from the opposing group who had stabbed both victims. However, it was later alleged that due to our client’s involvement in the incident he was equally, although indirectly, culpable of the outcomes.
Based on this, our client was charged with six counts: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), violent disorder and possession of a bladed article. He was subsequently remanded into custody at Feltham Young Offender’s Institution.
This charging decision was based on the Supreme Court decision in the case R v Gnango, which identifies a restrictively defined route to secondary parasitic liability for murder. The Prosecution also had regard to the Supreme Court decision in the joint enterprise case of R v Jogee.
Our Defence
Senior Solicitor Nick Seeley took on our client’s matter. Due to the number of co-defendants and the seriousness of the charges, the evidence and caseload were substantial and required thorough and meticulous analysis.
For the case of Gnango to be applied at court, evidence is required upon which a jury can be sure that group A and group B both agreed with each other to stab and be stabbed at and/or in the alternative, there had been a spontaneous conditional agreement.
This agreement may be explicit and in advance or it may be a spur of the moment. However, there must be substantial evidence to establish such an agreement from both sides.
Our client denied inciting any violence or having possession of a knife at the time of the incident. It was only upon search of his room following his arrest that Police found a knife and images of knives were found on our client’s phone. He also maintained that he had no intention in engaging in any violence prior to the incident and stated that once knives were brandished and physical violence began, he fled the scene.
There was a substantial risk that our client, even as a youth, would face a lengthy custodial sentence which, due to the gravity of the charges, which would have a significant and indefinite effect on his future.
Submission of No Case to Answer
Our client’s case was heard at Luton Crown Court, where he was represented by Barristers Ignatius Hughes KC and Jordan Santos-Sindes of 9BR Chambers. The trial lasted 31 days, with multiple co-defendants being tried simultaneously.
At the end of the Prosecution’s case, our team submitted an argument of no case to answer. This submission argued that there was no evidence that our client was party to any agreement to engage in violence at any stage.
Likewise, there was no evidence to show that our client was in possession of a knife at the scene of the incident, nor did he produce one or show any act of violence. Furthermore, there was no evidence that he was aware in advance that those in the opposing group would produce and use knives to stab at his own group.
Ultimately, wesubmitted that there was no case to answer in respect of counts 1-4. Thanks to the strength of these submissions, the argument was accepted and our client was acquitted of these charges.
Outcome for the Remaining Charges
In relation to the remaining charges of violent disorder and possession of a knife, our client accepted these charges and pleaded guilty to both. Ahead of his sentencing, a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was prepared, which recommended a referral order as a suitable sentence. However, the Prosecution argued in their sentencing note that a Detention and Training Order (DTO) would be more suitable.
When sentencing our client, the Judge agreed with the arguments we advanced and imposed concurrent sentences of 12-month referral orders for both charges. In addition, a 3-month doorstep-curfew was imposed, as well as a 12-month exclusionOrder from a particular location..
Following this, the Prosecution informed our team that they wished to apply for a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for our client. Jordan Santos-Sindes made further representations, strongly opposing this as a CBO would only impose additional unnecessary restrictions on our client. Ultimately, the imposition of a CBO was not supported by the Youth Partnership Service, and the Prosecution discontinued this application.
Our client was extremely relieved with the outcome of his case, considering the seriousness of initial charges and the severity of the sentences. The imposition of a referral order as opposed to a prison sentence is an excellent outcome.
Our client was very grateful to the team from Lawtons and 9BR for their extensive efforts and support throughout this ordeal. This case is a prime example of the importance of instructing experienced and specialist youth defence solicitors when facing criminal charges, particularly when involving children. Without such expertise from Nick in preparing the case for trial and from the Barristers selected, our client may have faced a much more severe and detrimental outcome.
Looking for a specialist youth solicitor?
We understand how serious it is when a child is facing a criminal charge and the effect this can have on their future. At Lawtons, we have an experienced team of youth specialist Solicitors who are experienced in defending children on criminal matters. If a child has been arrested, reach out to us today and let us help guide you through the process. Call us on 0333 577 0522 or visit our enquiries page.
