The prosecution alleged that the principal defendant had committed murder during the disorder and that Mr Spreadborough’s client had subsequently assisted the offender in evading arrest, including involvement in transport away from the scene.

At trial, the defence carefully analysed the CCTV evidence, witness accounts, and the sequence of events following the incident. The prosecution case was challenged on both factual and legal grounds.

A submission of no case to answer was successfully advanced in relation to the violent disorder count, which was dismissed by the trial judge. The remaining allegation of assisting an offender was left to the jury.

Following detailed legal argument and careful presentation of the evidence, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

This case involved complex issues of joint enterprise, post offence conduct, and evidential interpretation arising from a fast moving and highly charged incident involving multiple participants.

The outcome highlights the importance of careful forensic analysis of CCTV and movement evidence, effective challenge to assumptions around knowledge and intent, and the strategic use of half time submissions to narrow the issues before the jury.

Violent disorder was dismissed following a successful submission of no case to answer. The allegation of assisting an offender resulted in a unanimous not guilty verdict.

This was a strong result achieved through detailed preparation and effective advocacy by the defence team.