'Police drove people like cattle' - live updates as first Ely riots trial reaches conclusion

Grieving mums gave references

Mr Ibrahim said there "must be no doubt in the jury’s minds before you convict Mr Baston".

He said his client had set up a football match to fundraise for Harvey Evans and Kyrees Sullivan, to raise money for their funerals.

The barrister added: "Harvey Evans died on that pavement, Kyrees Sullivan died next to him on that pavement. Their mothers who lost everything that day, saw it fit to give this young man references."

He quoted Nadine Evans and Belinda Sullivan referring to Baston as "Lovely, polite, quiet, cheeky chap, reliable, respectful, loving and supportive young man."

The trial adjourns for the day and will resume at 10.30am tomorrow.

Defendant was in 'some kind of stupor'

Mr Ibrahim said: "If he was rioter, would he not have thrown more? Put a mask on?"

The barrister refers to Baston saying: "After I threw it, it did not help my emotions, so I left."

Mr Ibrahim said: "After the leaving the scene, he stays home and doesn’t want to be a part of that…

"If it was your friends over there with tarpaulin over them, you’d want to know what was going on.

"His mind was focused on his friends and what he thought may have happened to them

"Moments of shock and realising people you knew are gone or possibly gone, you’re in some kind of stupor.

"He wanted to know what was going on and all there was was rumour."

Defendant laughed because of 'nappy throw'

Mr Ibrahim said: "This defendant knew these boys well, very well, and he knew them for years."

The barrister said Baston was 17 when his father died and said his friends became "increasingly important".

Mr Ibrahim added: "That’s why he stayed there until 9pm, to find out what happened to his friends. It was clear who the boys were and it was there in front of him

"Would you stay? Of course you would, it’s natural and human."

The barrister added: "The prosecution said to you he was smiling and laughing…. This was because someone threw a nappy in the air."

He said it was not an offence for the defendant to be "optimistic".

'Rumour and conjecture spread like wildfire'

Mr Ibrahim said Baston was playing football with his friends when he heard of the collision which killed Harvey Evans and Kyrees Sullivan.

He said Baston walked to the scene of the collision to find out what had happened.

The barrister said "grown men" were crying at the scene and police were holding their heads down.

Mr Ibrahim said: "Did it look to you the whole area was in shock with grief, and he’s there. You can see him wandering around and there’s no one advancing on the scene, maybe the parents and the mothers, but they weren’t allowed at the scene.

"It was absolutely awful."

"He wasn’t informed about anything by the police.

"Rumour and conjecture spread like wildfire."

Defendant's 'head was spinning'

Mr Ibrahim said Baston was the eldest male in his household at the age of 19, following the death of his father, and his mother was pregnant.

He said there was a "huge amount of responsibility on young shoulders".

The barrister said there were rumours in Baston’s head from social media, his "head was spinning" and still doesn’t know what happened.

He said Baston did not try and avoid answering questions when giving evidence.

The trial resumes

Defence barrister Ian Ibrahim, for Jaydan Baston, begins his closing speech.

He refers to his client referring to the police as “murderers”.

Mr Ibrahim said: “Wasn’t that the rumour going round at the time?”.

He said his client had been following social media after the collision.

The barrister reminds the jury his client is of previous good character.

He added: “One second it took for him to throw that single item.

“What does he do before and after which shows his intention to join a common purpose?”

Jury urged to 'dispel stereotypes'

Mr Snow said Bratcher accepted throwing the stone because he was “angry” at police.

The barrister said it is up to the jury to decide on a person’s guilt and the prosecution had to make them sure that a person was guilty.

He invites the jury to find his client not guilty if they are not sure or have doubts.

Mr Snow asked the jury “to dispel stereotypes” when considering their verdict.

The trial adjourns for a short break.

Defendant 'threw a single stone then walked away'

Darren Snow, defence barrister for Jordan Bratcher, said: “We all know there was a tragic background to the events, the death of two young men. Jordan accepts that tragedy does not excuse his actions in throwing that stone at 8.39pm.”

He said once the defendant had thrown that single stone, he turned around and walked up Stanway Road away from the crowd and the police.

Mr Snow there was no evidence of him approaching the front line or shouting abuse, but witnessed what was happening.

The barrister added: “The fact is, all he did and all that he did was throw a stone.”

The court previously heard Bratcher was home by 9.30pm.

The barrister said Bratcher “regretted what he did, realised he was stupid and was ashamed and embarrassed”.

'Evidence amounts to period of 30 seconds' - barrister

Mr Kendal said Farrugia accepted he had lied in his police interview and had not sought to hide anything from the jury.

He says this makes it more believable then Farrugia said he did things off of his own back.

The barrister says the prosecution’s evidence amounts of a period of 30 seconds when Farrugia threw stones

Mr Kendal said: “There is not enough to satisfy you so you are sure he was acting in a common purpose when he was doing what he was doing.”

He added: “If you think Mr Farrugia might have been acting with a common purpose, that’s not enough to convict him.”

The barrister said the prosecution had not passed the “high standard” of proof in order to convict Farrugia.

Defendant saw 'things getting out of hand' and left

Mr Kendal said Farrugia said he did what he did because he was “angry” and not interested in what everyone else was doing around him.

He said the defendant was not acting for a common purpose.

The barrister says the jury does not necessarily have to believe Farrugia, but if they think he may be right, then a not guilty verdict would have to be returned.

Mr Kendal said his client “left the scene completely” and was not involved in the throwing of petrol bombs or fireworks or turning cars over.

He said the defendant referred to “things getting out of hand” and wanted to take himself out of the situation.

Defendant does 'not have the common purpose of rioting'

Beginning his speech, Zayne Farrugia’s barrister Andrew Kendal said: “Zayne Farrugia accepts he has done wrong, he accepts wholeheartedly he behaved badly. Nothing justified him throwing stones at the police the way he did. Looking back at it now he is ashamed of his behaviour.

“Absolutely nothing I say is designed to undermine the seriousness of what Mr Farrugia did.”

The barrister says it must have been “terrifying” for the police and the community of Ely, and described it as an “extremely upsetting incident”.

Mr Kendal tells the jury Farrugia would “not be getting off on a technicality” if he is found not guilty.

He says the defendant does not have the common purpose of rioting.

He acted like a '20-year-old boy who was embarrassed in front of his mates'

Ms Friedman said Danks will face the consequences of assaulting police officers after he threw his sliders at them.

She said he acted like a “20-year-old boy who was embarrassed in front of his mates”.

After that, the barrister said Danks did not display any other form of violence.

Ms Friedman referred to her client not joining in with others by throwing stones or wearing a face mask.

She referred to Danks’ involvement as a “distinct and separate incident”.

Concluding her speech, Ms Friedman said: “I invite you to suggest the prosecution has not met the high standard of proof and Mr Danks is not guilty of rioting.”

Conduct did 'not amount to unlawful violence'

Ms Friedman questions the prosecution’s claim that Danks had gone to the scene of the collision knowing violence would unfold.

She said: “Mr Danks stood watching the tragedy unfold with many of his peers

“He was described by Nadine Evans as ‘like a brother’ to Harvey Evans.”

The barrister said Danks calling officers “p******” was "unacceptable conduct” but did not amount to “unlawful violence”.

She said: “That was his reaction when asked to move back, that is rude, and unacceptable, but it is not conduct capable of amounting to rioting.”

Ms Friedman said Danks was pushed by two police officers and did not physically react.

She also called the prosecution “hypocritical” for “making light” of Danks being kicked in the face

The barrister said: “Mr Danks reacted to being kicked in the face and who he thought had kicked him to the face.”

'A push and two flip flops throw'

Ms Friedman said Danks accepts using violence, but he later went and stood on the side.

The barrister refers to prosecutor Mr Cobbe saying this was an option not taken by O’Sullivan.

She said Danks “did not encourage anything at all” at 11.13pm, and that his presence later was “hot helpful or irrelevant”.

Ms Friedman said Danks admitted to the jury he had lied to the police, and he was not to be convicted solely on the basis of a lie.

She said the defendant’s violence amounts to “a push and two flip flops thrown”.

The barrister said it is up to the jury to decide whether Danks’ unlawful violence amounted to rioting “in a common purpose with others”.

Danks was just stood in his garden

The trial resumes.

Hannah Friedman, defence barrister for McKenzie Danks, begins her closing speech.

She says the prosecution claimed that Danks, by standing in a garden, was encouraging what was going on.

Ms Friedman said: “The prosecution say while simply being present wasn’t enough, they say Danks was encouraging the riot by being present. That doesn’t make sense.”

She said her client was standing with his hands in his pockets.

'They're not all mindless men intent on rioting'

Concluding his speech, Mr Baker said: “”This case is very important for a number of reasons, the police, this defendant and the rest of the defendants in the dock.

“They’re not all mindless men intent on rioting with the police, they come in all shapes and sizes.”

He asked the court to “do the right thing” and find his client not guilty of rioting.

The court adjourns until 2pm.

“You may think his behaviour is obnoxious but that does not mean he is guilty of rioting or inciting a riot.”

Mr Baker tells the jury they cannot be sure it is Robinson speaking on the footage, when a voice says “Pigs, murderers, killing people, shooting dogs and killing kids, biggest organised crime gang” and “Dash it, throw it, yeah… Go on boys, get them.”

Mr Baker said: “You may think his behaviour is obnoxious but that does not mean he is guilty of rioting or inciting a riot.”

He also said it is not a criminal offence to shout obscenities at the police, or refer to them as an “organised crime gang”.

The barrister said no voice recognition examination had been carried out on the footage.

No evidence Robinson flipped car

Mr Baker said the prosecution are “keen” for Robinson to be convicted.

He added: “It is a true stretch of the meaning of the English word to say he can be counted among those throwing stones”

The barrister said it was clear Robinson was using abusive words towards PC Ellery but the officer had called this behaviour “boring” and should “change the record”.

I suppose nobody would have thought the later riot when fire and bricks were thrown was boring.”

He said Robinson told police he went home after “the officer hit him” and was watching the riot afterwards.

The barrister said there is no evidence his client flipped a car, and refers to a text message sent by the defendant as “stupid words, nothing”.

'No-one is suggesting Robinson used any violence'

Mr Baker said the prosecution makes a “wild allegation” that Robinson was the one speaking on his footage, and rules out it could have been anyone else.

He also refers to questions about what people were thinking during the riot.

Mr Baker said: “How can one man know what another person is thinking?”

The barrister said Robinson may have appeared as an “imposing figure” but “no one is suggesting he used any violence that night”.

He also referred to his client having “no previous convictions for serious violence”.

The barrister also refers to the fact his defendant was not arrested at the scene and later apologised for his behaviour.

Footage of defendant being pleasant was ignored

Mr Baker said: “We are not here to police the police, the police are not on trial here, the defendants are.”

He said: “The prosecution are keen to call the whole of the event a riot. They need the whole thing to be called a riot.”

Mr Baker refers to Robinson being called “boring” by a police officer

He also refers to his client running away from PC Rogers and being “assaulted from behind”

He also refers to footage of Robinson being “perfectly pleasant” to an officer later on in the evening

Mr Baker said: “None of these were offending material and did not fit their agenda.”

He said the prosecution brings the case and must make the jury sure they are guilty.

Police 'drove people like cattle'

Harry Baker, defence barrister for Lee Robinson, begins his closing speech.

He said: “Those two young men were dead by the time the events unfolded.”

The barrister refers to the prosecution referring to some of the defendants smiling, which he suggested was “insensitive”.

The barrister added: “The prosecution in this case are desperate to convict these men and will pull no punches.”

Mr Baker described the police as driving people “like cattle up Wilson Road”.

When referring to people acting in a common purpose, he said: “You could do no better than when the police drew their asp in a show of strength.”

Defence speeches begin

The barristers for the defendants are now beginning their speeches summing up the evidence.

'It's high time they were held to account for what they did'

Concluding his speech, Mr Cobbe said: “They still ask you to accept they’re not guilty. I ask you to reject that. It’s high time they are held to account for what they did.

“I invite you to do just that, I ask you to convict them all.”

Williams was 'noisy, obnoxious and confrontational'

Mr Cobbe said Luke Williams was “noisy, obnoxious and confrontational”.

The prosecutor said: “He marched up and down the police line shouting ‘F*** off’

“Did he really think they would do that? No. It was abuse for abuse sake and was eye and ear catching.

“It was a clear demonstration to the police and those all around him about how he felt about the police.”

Mr Cobbe refers to the footage of Based Welshman, who was just commentating, and contrasts it to the footage of Luke WIlliams

He added: “This was vocal encouragement clearly hoping to encourage others to use violence.

“A great big hooray and a lot of big talk to get people down to join in.”

Refers to Williams choosing not to give evidence.

Some of Williams’ footage is played to the court.

'Shameful behaviour'

Mr Cobbe said O’Sullivan claims he was threatened to take part in the riot or he would be “beaten up” by someone he didn’t know.

The barrister said the defendant was looking for an excuse to explain that “shameful behaviour”.

Mr Cobbe said: “What was he doing at the front of the line gesturing to the police?”

He said it’s the prosecution’s case a threat was not made, but if the jury did accept a threat was made, they have to assess what the level of threat was.

Mr Cobbe said O’Sullivan was there “for hours” after the threat and did not put himself out of harm's way.

Asked the jury to consider the moments O’Sullivan appeared to “enjoy” the riot.

Mr Cobbe said: “He did riot, he didn’t have to, he clearly chose to didn’t he?”

Defendant is 'a smiler'

Baston waited to throw his tile or plasterboard, he threw a missile at the police at a time missiles had started to be thrown at the police.

He referred to Baston as “a smiler”.

The barrister refers to Baston asking a police officer: “Would you hit me with that?”

Mr Cobbe said: “They were clearly enjoying themselves weren’t they?

“He said he didn’t know if the boys were dead or alive but still took a moment to ‘terrorize’.”

It was said Baston had said a lot of the riot was at the “fault of the police”

Baston was quoted as saying “Murderers that’s how I think of them, murderers, if certain people see them on the street, trust me, it’s not looking good for them.”

Mr Cobbe refers to Baston saying “We’re trying to prove our point”.

He said the defendant claimed he made a mistake and meant to say “I’m” and “my”.

"His lie is trying to distinguish himself from the other part of the mob"

Mr Cobbe said Bratcher was one of the people who threw a “flurry” of stones at police.

He said it’s the prosecution’s case it is “ludicrous” Bratcher was acting independently.

The barrister said Bratcher was “bouncing” and his arms were “cartoon like” and “rolling around”.

He said Bratcher had claimed he was pushed in the back by a police officer and then threw rocks.

Mr Cobbe said Bratcher’s account was “nonsensical”

He added: “(Bratcher) was angry with the police, that’s why he was joining in. His lie is trying to distinguish himself from the other part of the mob.”

“The hood up becomes a notable sign of someone intent on engaging in violence.”

Mr Cobbe said Farrugia was there from an early stage.

He said: “The hood up becomes a notable sign of someone intent on engaging in violence.”

The prosecutor referred to Farrugia wearing his hood up and heading to gardens to pick up stones and throw them.

He said he had “six goes” at throwing stones at unprotected officers.

Mr Cobbe said Farrugia was not honest in his police interview.

Refers to Farrugia’s claim he was “throwing stones off his own bat”.

He said Farrugia claimed people were “angry and upset” at police for the way they were treating people.

The barrister said: “What is his defence?”

Baston's account 'defies sense of coherence or logic'

Mr Cobbe turns to who he calls “the stone throwers” Farrugia, Bratcher and Baston.

He said Farrugia and Bratcher “seemed to accept all the elements of rioting”. The prosecutor added: “It’s hard to follow what an earth there defence is.

“Mr Baston is a little different but his account defies sense of coherence or logic.”.

Danks was 'goading, smirking and sneering'

Mr Cobbe said it was “no coincidence that these threats come at a time when they come with actual violence”.

The barrister said Danks’ reaction to falling over the bike was to assault two police officers.

Mr Cobbe said: “He accepts assaulting the officers but says it was nothing to do with riot.

“When pushed back and likely hit with a baton, he shoved another officer…

“Goading, smirking and sneering in the minutes before it all came to a head.

“This riot was absolutely about a confrontation with the police and he was very much part of the crowd.

“Made a big show of spitting at the police, he said there was no phlegm. Big deal. He said he was taunting, that’s precisely the issue.”