Not asking for a lawyer for the police interview was Jack’s second and most costly mistake that weekend in November 2022. If he had, he may not have waited almost two years and suffered the costs of funding his defence. He won’t get the time back and he will only be eligible to receive a fraction of his fees back and won’t be recompensed for four days of missed work as he travelled to court in London from Yorkshire.
His first mistake was engaging with the man holding the bottle at the entrance of the pub in West London. No one knew who he was but the ensuing argument outside the pub led to Jack receiving cuts to the head .
Another individual leaving the pub also received a cut to the head during a melee in the doorway as a result of being hit by a bottle.
As Jack and his party left the pub they heard glasses being thrown, smashing in their direction .
When Jack, now separated from his friends, flagged down police the other injured party had already reported that he was the victim of bottle attack.
Police concluded at that point that despite and because of his own injury, Jack was the suspect and he was arrested, taken to a police station via hospital and detained for a further 18 hours while he was questioned. He didn’t ask for a solicitor as he thought that may delay matters – and of course he had nothing to hide. He accepted he was involved in what he described as, “handbags” at the entrance to the pub but at no point did he accept using a bottle. The CCTV shown in the interview was said to support his account.
Obviously police needed to carry out further enquiries and Jack was released. Almost 12 months later he received a notification to attend court charged with ABH which is when he contacted BSB Partner Jonathan Black
When he appeared at court the prosecutor provided CCTV but the footage was very unclear and didn’t show Jack hitting the other party with a bottle. Jack had not seen this footage before but was adamant this was different to the footage that he was shown during his interview.
At this stage we didn’t have an interview.
That footage never reappeared. The officer in the case disappeared . No one was able to explain what happened to it nor could they tell us why police had not carried out investigations by speaking to the many members of staff at that pub, including door supervisors in the 12 months before charge. It transpired that the officer had left the force, no one had reviewed the interview and the initial case papers served prior to court provided no summary of the questions and answers.
It could easily have gone so wrong, as it felt as though a miscarriage of justice was potentially unfolding in front of our eyes.
The only proof we would have of the missing CCTV was the discussion relating to it in the interview , but because the interview had not been served prior to the trial date in February it needed to be adjourned . We were also told that the investigation log (crime report) contained nothing of relevance and therefore was deemed non disclosable. The trial listed in February had to be adjourned for the interview recording and transcript to be located and served.
Eventually when it was served it became clear that there were other camera angles that had been recorded onto the officer’s body cam, but because he had left his role the , we were told footage was no longer available.
The second trial date in June had to be adjourned when having declined to rule in favour of our abuse of process argument, on the basis that defence witnesses could address the issue of missing evidence (!) the court ran out of time.
In the meantime the defence were able to create a story board of the existing CCTV, freezeframing the footage to demonstrate the angles of reach in the melee and the involvement of a third party who was seen holding a bottle prior to the incident.
The trial in September 2024, nearly two years after the incident, heard from the single prosecution witness who was said to be the victim and Jack along with his witnesses, all of who confirmed that Jack was not holding a bottle at the material time. Having viewed the defence story board the court found Jack not guilty .
Despite his relief at acquittal, had Jack been advised at the police station by a lawyer who was able to challenge the evidence presented in interview, had the police spoken to witnesses who were working in the pub and indeed defence witnesses, had there been a proper review as to whether this was threshold test, Jack would not have had to wait two years to clear his name .
Jack was not eligible for legal aid and chose to be tried for Actual Bodily Harm in the Magistrates’ Court to keep costs down and ensure an earlier hearing given the backlog. Had he elected to be tried In the Crown Court it is possible that a fuller and more rigorous review may have taken place.
Jack was represented at court and throughout the proceedings by BSB partner Jonathan Black