Ranjeet Dulay, led by Tana Adkin KC and instructed by Len Furlong of LF Law, represented MT in both his initial trial and subsequent re-trial at the Central Criminal Court.
MT along with his co-defendants PY and MY were charged with murder, with the first trial commencing in November 2023. Following a successful submission of no case to answer, the learned Judge directed the jury to acquit Ranjeet’s client, MT, of murder. He remained on trial for manslaughter and he and his co-defendants were acquitted of all counts by the jury at the first trial. However, after the jury and defendants had been discharged, a note was received and the parties were called back to court only to be informed by the trial Judge there had been a ‘mistake’ in the verdicts delivered. The jury were placed back into retirement. The jury were eventually unable to reach any verdicts on the manslaughter count against MT, and the murder / manslaughter counts against PY and MY. The jury were discharged once again and the defendants remanded into custody pending a re-trial.
The defence teams commenced proceedings before the High Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and in the alternative a judicial review of the decisions to revoke the unanimous Not Guilty verdicts and to re-constitute the discharged jury before placing them back in retirement. The applications were dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, an abuse of process argument was mounted before the Crown Court but rejected and the three defendants faced a re-trial commencing in December 2024.
In the re-trial, MT faced trial for manslaughter, while his co-defendants, PY and MY, faced trial for murder and manslaughter. After a trial lasting five weeks, the second jury acquitted all three defendants unanimously after 55 minutes of deliberations.
The case was widely reported in the media given the controversy sparked by the revocation of the unanimous Not Guilty verdicts in the first trial and the proceedings that followed.
The matter arose from an incident outside the Cubana bar in Waterloo. MT had been enjoying an evening out with his two friends, PY and MY, at the bar. While MT remained inside the venue, his friends were attacked by the deceased’s group as they exited the venue. This initial interaction quickly escalated into a violent confrontation lasting over four minutes. CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts revealed that the deceased’s group, who were larger in their number and older in age, broke glass bottles, used them to threaten others, and hurled them into the crowd outside the bar. PY was struck to the head by the deceased with a glass bottle which he smashed to PY’s head causing a deep wound. After these events, and approximately three and a half minutes into the incident, MT exited the bar to a scene where the deceased’s group were armed with broken bottles. He had not seen any of the violence before and nor did he arm himself with any weapons. MT’s actions thereafter were ultimately determined to be defensive.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/adrian-keise-retrial-court-jury-b2679985.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kyr8nkl1o
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/yusuff-and-others-v-the-governor-of-his-majestys-prison-belmarsh/
