202401911 B3 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1317

D1 did not give evidence.

In his examination in chief, D2 said he had gone to the canal on 16^th August with D5 to smoke cannabis and had intended to meet another friend later to play pool. He had a vape in his hand and D5 had a can of Red Bull. Neither of them were carrying a knife. While sitting by the canal, he heard a shout for help in both English and Arabic. He saw D1 being attacked and ran to stop the fight.

C2 stopped D2 at the lock gate and threatened to stab him if he got involved. C2 then punched or pushed D2, so he pushed him back. The appellant pushed past and jumped the lock gate. D2 then pulled Youssef Alsrhan off of D1. C1 was also fighting with D1. C2 was still trying to fight with him. D2 then saw C1 and C2 going across the water. On the other side, C2 shouted, threatening his family, which made him angry and he threw his vape across the canal towards C2. He did not see the appellant and D3 leave but he had seen the appellant fighting with C1. D2 denied that there had been any agreement for all the co-accused to meet at the canal.

D2 said that afterwards he went with D1 and D5 to Ardwick (to the south east of Manchester City Centre) because D3 had found D1’s phone. D3 was with the appellant. He heard D3 say that he D3 had stabbed C2. He had not seen anyone get stabbed, nor had he seen anyone with a knife during the incident.

In cross examination for the appellant, D2 denied making up that the appellant had been fighting with C1, but agreed that he had not mentioned him fighting with anyone in interview or in his defence statement. It was suggested to D2 that he was lying to cover up the fact that he had stabbed C2 and probably C1 as well; that he was picking on the easiest victims to blame, the two younger boys. He denied trying to flee the country because of what he had done. He was going to see a sick relative in Iraq.

In further cross-examination for the co-accused and the prosecution, D2 said that he was trained in self-defence as a security guard so he was trying to control the fight. He had not seen D1 with a knife. He had not seen D4 involved in the fighting. He denied saying that D3 had confessed to stabbing C2 simply because of what D3 had said in his interview. D2 said he had remained silent previously on advice but now it was the right time to tell the truth in evidence. He said that there was no reason for D1 to know that any of the co-accused would come to his rescue and it was just coincidence that they responded to his shout. He repeated that D3 had told him that he had stabbed C2. He did not know who had stabbed C1, but he had seen the appellant fighting with him. He had not seen the appellant with a knife. He had not told police anything because he did not want to be a part of it and he was panicking. He had not discussed what had happened with the others and he did not know why he sent a message to D5 after the incident saying “Don’t say you were there”.

D3 did not give evidence, but D4 and D5 did.

The appellant’s case was that he had not wanted to be involved, he tried to break up the fight, he did not have a knife and he did not stab anyone.

In evidence in chief, the appellant said he had been with D3 and two girls just prior to the incident. They had gone down to the canal to smoke cannabis and relax. D1 and D2 walked past them and said hello. About 20 minutes later, they heard a shout or scream so the appellant and D3 ran towards the noise to see what was happening. When they arrived at the lock area, there were people fighting. The appellant tried to pull C2 away from D2. He then heard a splash and saw C1 in the water. At that point, he and D3 ran away. It all happened very quickly and he did not want to be involved.

The appellant said that he did not see anyone with a knife, he did not have a knife and he did not stab anyone. After the incident, a friend of D3’s picked them up. D3 was receiving a lot of calls. They drove to a park in Ardwick, where D1, D2 and D5 arrived in two cars. D3 spoke to the others but the appellant did not. He waited in the car. He then left with D3 and his friend and remained at the friend’s house for the rest of the evening. The appellant was arrested in November 2023. He did not answer questions in interview because his solicitor advised him not to.

In cross-examination for D2, the appellant confirmed that he did not hear words shouted or screamed, just a noise. He was interested to see what was going on. He was very high, a little confused, with heightened emotions. The appellant did not remember C2 telling them not to get involved at the lock gate. He just saw fighting and he pulled C2 away from D2. He also saw D1 on the floor being attacked by two men. He denied producing a chrome flick knife. He said C2 was lying when he said that. He did not inflict injury with a knife on either C2 or C1. He denied being involved in the fighting. He ran away because he was scared, not because he had stabbed anyone.

The appellant could not remember the calls he made after the incident but he was not trying to arrange transport to get away because he had done something wrong. He swapped jumpers later in the evening with D3 because he was cold. He did not change his clothes because they were bloodied. He did not discuss the incident with the others in Ardwick. Neither he, nor D3 were boasting about stabbing anyone.

In further cross-examination for D3 and then for the prosecution, the appellant confirmed D3 was his best friend and they lived close to each other. He did not hear any shouting about knives or killing anyone. He had tried to help the adults who were fighting. The appellant first saw C1 on top of D1 and had pushed him off. He then went to split up C2 and D2. D3 told him as they were running away that he had seen knives but the appellant had not, himself, seen any knives. He did not ask D3 anything further about who had the knives. He did not think D3 had had a knife or stabbed anyone. The appellant was the youngest of those there but he was not “the kid with the chrome flick knife”.

D3 did not give evidence.

The issue for the jury was whether each of the co-accused had caused, or helped or encouraged another to cause, the death of C1 or serious injury to C2.