Terisa Chaudary’s client faced an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) following an incident outside a bar in Beckenham.
The prosecution alleged that, during a confrontation involving security staff and two brothers, our client punched one of the brothers several times, causing bruising around his eye socket.
The incident arose after one of the brothers allegedly assaulted a member of the bar’s security team. The security staff member followed him up the road, accompanied by our client. During the ensuing confrontation, the security staff member punched the first brother, rendering him unconscious. Our client was alleged to have simultaneously punched the second brother four or five times.
The defence case on the Assault charge
Our client accepted that he had thrown punches at the complainant. However, his case was that he had acted in defence of his colleague, whom he believed was being unlawfully assaulted.
Our client maintained that he had not seen the punch thrown by his colleague that rendered the first brother unconscious. His defence was therefore based on his honest belief that his colleague was under attack and that his intervention was necessary to protect him.
Terisa instructed Tom Gregson who challenged the prosecution’s evidence on two central issues: whether it could prove that our client had caused the injury to the complainant’s eye, and whether his actions were lawful in the defence of another.
Challenging the evidence of injury
A key difficulty for the prosecution was the complainant’s inability to identify with certainty who had caused the injury to his eye.
In his original statement, made three days after the incident, the complainant attributed the punch that injured his right eye to our client’s colleague rather than our client. During his evidence, he acknowledged that he had not been certain of the assailant’s identity, explaining: “I did not say I was sure… I said I believed.”
We highlighted this uncertainty and challenged the prosecution’s ability to establish the necessary link between our client’s actions and the specific injury alleged.
The complainant’s account also raised questions about how the injury could have been caused. He described our client punching him on the top and back of his head, while accepting that he had covered his face with his hands during the exchange. The defence argued that this evidence was inconsistent with the allegation that our client had caused the injury to his eye.
Challenging witness credibility
Tom’s scrutinised inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, highlighting how his account changed during cross-examination despite having previously maintained a different version of events. Questions were also raised about his recollection of the incident, given his acceptance that he had consumed alcohol throughout the day and smoked cannabis.
These matters were put before the jury as relevant considerations when assessing the reliability of his evidence and whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Self-Defence and defence of another
Our defence’s second principal argument concerned the lawfulness of our client’s actions. Our client accepted that he had used force against the complainant but maintained that he did so to protect his colleague from what he believed to be an unlawful assault.
The defence invited the jury to consider the circumstances as our client honestly believed them to be at the time, rather than judging his actions with the benefit of hindsight. The central question was whether the prosecution had made the jury sure that our client’s use of force was not lawful self-defence or defence of another.
The outcome
Following deliberations, the jury unanimously found our client Not Guilty.
The acquittal meant our client avoided the prospect of a custodial sentence and the potentially lasting consequences of a criminal conviction. A conviction could also have created significant barriers to securing employment in the future.
The outcome highlights the importance of robust criminal defence representation, particularly where the prosecution’s evidence is uncertain and the defendant’s actions are said to have been taken in defence of another. Through careful scrutiny of the evidence and a clear presentation of the defence case, our client was able to secure a unanimous acquittal and avoid the potentially life-changing consequences of a conviction.
