Client acquitted following altercation at a takeaway

Case study summary

Our client was a student who had been accused of causing serious physical harm to his accuser outside a takeaway in Halifax. Our expert lawyers were able to prove that he acted in self-defence, and he was found not guilty after trial at Bradford Crown Court.

Case study

Our client came to us following his initial interview with the police. He had asked for the duty solicitor to represent him on this occasion, but was not happy with the advice following the interview or the work done on his case during the investigation stage. He was ultimately charged with the offence of causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

On the night in question, our client had been out with his younger brother in Halifax. Towards the end of the night, they made their way towards a local takeaway to order some food. The complainant had also been present inside the takeaway and they got into a fight, which ended when our client punched the complainant in the face, causing him to fall to the floor. It later transpired that the complainant had suffered permanent head trauma as a result of the punch. The entire incident outside of the takeaway was captured on CCTV.

Although he struck first, our client maintained, both during his initial interview and in his further instructions to us, that he had acted in self defence and had anticipated that the complainant would hit him because of the way he exited the takeaway and his general demeanour. It was later shown that the complainant had been out drinking all day while our client had not had a lot to drink at all.

When we obtained and analysed the CCTV footage, it was clear that the complainant was the aggressor, and we suspected that this matter had been pushed to trial solely because of the injuries that the complainant sustained. In addition to this, multiple members of the complainant's group had provided inconsistent accounts that contradicted each other, but that tried to paint our client in a negative light.

Crucially, no footage was exhibited that captured the inside of the takeaway. However, an independent witness, a taxi driver who was sat outside the takeaway at the time of the incident, provided the police with a statement which named the complainant as the aggressor. The prosecution had decided not to use this as part of their case and had served this as unused material. Obviously, this was very important for our case and we were able to use this person as a defence witness.

In preparation for the trial, we collated the various pieces of evidence and prepared a plan to cross examine the relevant witnesses to highlight the various inconsistencies to the jury and ultimately show them that our client was only ever acting in reasonable self-defence. This was presented by our experienced advocate, Derek Duffy of St Pauls Chambers, and a not guilty verdict was returned after a 3-day trial.

Following the acquittal, our client was able to return to his studies, which had been put on hold as a result of these proceedings. He was immensely grateful to get back to his normal routine.