Hesham Puri has defended one of four defendants were charged with affray following an incident during a night out in London. The allegations were made by several off-duty police officers who claimed they had been attacked in an unprovoked incident, even suggesting that there was a homophobic element to the confrontation.
After a 13-day trial in the Crown Court, the jury deliberated for approximately 12 hours before returning Not Guilty verdicts for all four defendants, fully acquitting them of the allegations.
The allegations
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the accounts of the off-duty police officers present at the venue that evening. They alleged that the defendants had initiated an aggressive confrontation and targeted them and that the confrontation had a homophobic element.
Defence representations on public interest and alternative resolution
During the course of proceedings, and prior to the trial, the defence teams made formal representations to the Crown Prosecution Service arguing that the decision to prosecute should be reviewed in light of the public interest test.
The defendants were four women of previous good character, and the defence submitted that the evidence – particularly the available CCTV footage – raised serious questions about whether a full Crown Court trial was proportionate or necessary.
It was argued that the case could and should have been resolved without the need for a contested trial, particularly given the impact such proceedings have on defendants and the strain on the criminal justice system.
The defence therefore proposed that the matter be dealt with by way of an out-of-court resolution, for example a Bind Over to Keep the Peace, which is a recognised mechanism for resolving lower-level disputes without the need for criminal convictions or lengthy trials.
These representations were rejected by the CPS.
CCTV evidence revealed a different account
The defence strategy focused closely on CCTV footage obtained from the venue, which ultimately proved pivotal to the case.
The footage showed behaviour inconsistent with the accounts given by the off duty officers and at one stage, one of the off duty officers could be seen repeatedly swearing and pointing aggressively toward members of the defendant’s group. In another moment captured on camera, one of the off-duty police officer’s slapped one of the defendants on the arm, prompting a physical reaction.
Cross-Examination highlighted inconsistencies
During cross-examination, the Defence Barrister, Dominic Thomas of 25 Bedford Row Chambers, challenged the off-duty officers about inconsistencies between their accounts and the CCTV evidence. The officer maintained that there had been no interaction between the two groups prior to the incident, however the footage clearly showed otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancies, the officer stated that she did not remember those interactions.
Transparency and disclosure issues raised during trial
During the proceedings, The Sun successfully applied to the judge for the CCTV footage to be released publicly. The Crown Prosecution Service opposed the application because the off-duty police officers were reluctant for the footage to be made public.
The judge ruled that the public had a right to see the footage and observed that the CPS appeared to have been “heavily influenced… by the profession of the witnesses in the case.”
While the court made this observation about the decision-making process, we further question whether this prosecution would have been pursued at all had this incident been between members of the public rather than police officers.
Impact on the defendants
The incident occurred in 2022, yet the trial concluded over three years later.
During that time, the 4 defendants lived with serious criminal allegations hanging over them, affecting their personal and professional lives. The lengthy delay highlights the real-world impact that prolonged criminal proceedings can have on individuals who are ultimately acquitted.
Wider criminal justice system considerations
The case also raises broader questions about the public interest in pursuing prosecutions of this nature, particularly where objective evidence appears to contradict the allegations.
According to a 2023 report by the Crown Prosecution Service, the average daily operational cost of a Crown Court case—covering court staff and building overheads—is estimated at approximately £3,036 per day.
For a 13-day Crown Court trial involving four defendants, with multiple barristers for both the prosecution and defence, as well as solicitors and extensive preparation, the total cost of this case is reasonably estimated to be in the region of £400,000.
At a time when the criminal justice system faces significant pressure and some trials are already being listed as far ahead as 2029, this raises an important question: was this prosecution truly in the public interest?
Justice must be seen to be done. However, cases such as this inevitably raise questions about whose justice is being served and whether scarce court resources are always being deployed appropriately.
Result: All defendants found Not Guilty
After hearing the evidence and considering the CCTV footage the jury unanimously returned Not Guilty verdicts for all four defendants.
The case highlights the importance of careful evidence analysis, robust cross-examination, and the critical role of video evidence in ensuring that inaccurate accounts are properly challenged in court.
It also demonstrates the vital importance of jury-led trials within the criminal justice system. Independent juries provide an essential safeguard, allowing ordinary members of the public to assess the evidence fairly and reach their own conclusions.
At a time when proposals are being considered that could limit or bypass jury trials in certain cases, this outcome serves as a clear reminder of why jury trials remain such a fundamental protection within the justice system.
Justice prevailed in this case. However, it is important to recognise that the result was not achieved because the system naturally facilitated it, but because solicitors and barristers worked diligently to ensure that the full facts were properly presented and scrutinised in court.
