George Dugbo of Lamb Building Chambers has successfully secured the acquittal of a defendant charged with affray following a contested trial at the Crown Court.

The prosecution case alleged that the defendant, acting together with others, used unlawful violence in a public setting such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety. The Crown relied primarily on CCTV footage and sought to characterise the incident as group-based public disorder.

The defence resisted a number of key prosecution applications at an early stage, including an attempt to adduce the guilty plea of a co-defendant, which was successfully excluded on the grounds of unfair prejudice.

On the eve of trial, the prosecution amended the indictment to introduce a “group conduct” basis of liability. The defence opposed the amendment; however, it was ultimately allowed. The effect of the amendment was to shift the focus of the trial to the conduct of the group as a whole, thereby increasing the risk of the Defendant being judged by association rather than by his individual actions.

During the trial, the defendant accepted that limited force had been used but maintained that this occurred in the context of attempting to recover a stolen moped belonging to a friend. A central issue arose as to whether the defence of lawful force was available, given that the original theft had occurred some time earlier.

The authorities initially suggested that such a defence would not arise where the offence had been completed, and no direct authority was identified to support the proposition that handling stolen goods could amount to ongoing criminality for the purposes of self-defence. The Court indicated that the defence may be withdrawn unless persuaded otherwise. In response, the defence advanced a fact-sensitive argument that, upon the Defendant encountering the moped, the issue became one of handling stolen goods, thereby constituting ongoing criminality and providing a proper basis for lawful force to arise.

Through detailed legal submissions, the defence successfully persuaded the Court to leave the issue to the jury.

In closing, the defence focused on the Defendant’s use of reasonable and lawful force in seeking to recover the stolen moped, emphasising that his conduct fell to be assessed individually, notwithstanding allegations that others may have acted unlawfully.

The jury returned a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.