Not Guilty Verdicts Secured in Southwark Murder Trial

Jury returns Not Guilty verdicts on murder and manslaughter charges following defence arguments on vulnerability, secondary liability and evidential interpretation.

Felicity Gerry KC and Roxanne Morell (instructed by Saima Akhtar of Hannah Solicitors) secured not guilty verdicts on charges of both murder and manslaughter yesterday following a jury trial at Southwark Crown Court in which the Crown Prosecution Service had refused a request to discontinue their case against a young woman who it was agreed at trial had suffered violence and abuse herself for over a decade.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury acquitted their client of both murder and manslaughter.

The prosecution alleged that their client was party to an agreed plan to attack, the scope of which included a stabbing, and they sought to establish that their client intentionally participated in, encouraged or assisted the actions of her co-defendant. The co-defendant agreed there was no plan and raised reasonable self-defence. The deceased had emerged with a very large knife.

Felicity and Roxanne consistently maintained that the evidence did not support the allegations of planning against their client and that the prosecution’s case depended upon speculative interpretations of footage and conduct rather than proof of the mental and conduct elements required in law.

A central feature of the defence case was agreed and unchallenged expert evidence establishing that their client was a highly vulnerable young woman. That evidence, not disputed by the prosecution, was directly relevant to the proper interpretation of her conduct and state of mind before, during and after the incident.

The defence argued that the prosecution’s analysis invited the jury to draw conclusions from their client’s reactions at the scene which were incompatible with the expert evidence. Conduct said by the prosecution to demonstrate knowledge, participation or shared purpose was, the defence submitted, equally consistent with the behaviour of a vulnerable individual responding to a rapidly unfolding and traumatic event.

In the closing address for the defence, Felicity summarised the central defence argument: “This is a case where hindsight and interpretation of footage by the prosecution distorts reality. A life has been lost, and it is natural to search for accountability. But the law demands discipline. You must acquit when the interpretation of evidence is so unreasonable that you can conclude there is no evidence at all.”

Felicity and Roxanne also challenged the prosecution’s approach to secondary liability. The case raised important questions concerning the distinction between objective inferences drawn from circumstances and proof of a defendant’s subjective knowledge, intention, or encouragement. Felicity and Roxanne submitted that the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence elided that distinction. Rather than proving what their client actually knew, intended or encouraged, the prosecution invited the jury to infer criminal responsibility from presence, association, reaction and hindsight analysis of events captured on footage.

The judicial route to verdict was structured to enable the jury to conclude there was no evidence of planning while considering whether this was a spontaneous event between two men on a doorstep with a background of a financial dispute over a rental scheme and thus issues of reasonable self-defence for the co-defendant who was convicted of murder.

The agreed expert evidence of vulnerability for the female defendant was particularly important in this regard because the prosecution suggested that her lack of reaction and participation at the scene was evidence of knowledge. The defence argued that the expert evidence substantially undermined the suggestion that her behaviour demonstrated any shared intent or common purpose. Vulnerability, trauma, passivity and evidence of “freezing” when faced with violence were all matters the jury was required to consider when assessing whether the prosecution had proved the elements necessary for liability for murder or manslaughter.

Despite those issues being raised throughout the proceedings, the CPS maintained its case and declined a written request to discontinue the prosecution. The jury’s verdicts confirm that the prosecution failed to satisfy the criminal standard of proof.

While the reasons for the verdict remain known only to the jury, the outcome serves as an important reminder of the principles reaffirmed in Jogee: criminal liability cannot be established through association, assumption, or hindsight. The law requires proof of agreed planning, intentional encouragement or assistance and proof of the defendant’s own state of mind which Felicity and Roxanne maintained was absent here.

This case further highlights the need for particular care when interpreting the conduct of vulnerable defendants. Behaviour that may appear significant when viewed retrospectively may look very different when assessed against the realities of vulnerability, trauma and the pressures of unfolding events.

You can read a news item on the case here but Felicity notes ‘Please do not be distracted by any suggestion this was a targeted attack’