Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
Mr Justice Tony Hunt has continued his charge to a jury of three women and nine men who are presiding over the trial of Riad Bouchaker.Â
Bouchaker is accused of the attempted murder of three small children, assault causing serious harm to their carer, assault causing harm in respect of two other young children and a young French man, and production of a 36cm kitchen knife. He denies all charges.
After closing statements were made by prosecuting counsel Carl Finnegan SC, and the defending senior counsel, yesterday, Justice Hunt began his lengthy overview of the evidence while explaining certain points of law for the jurors.
With regard to the three counts of attempted murder, the jury was told that they “have to be satisfied” that there was an attempt to kill, not an attempt to harm, in all three charges, which refer to two small girls and one small boy.
He explained that the prosecution must have been able to “prove that at the time of those actions” the accused “had a specific intention to kill” and that it was “not enough to have intention to cause serious harm”, and that if the jury was not satisfied of this, he  “must be acquitted of the charge”.
It was explained to the jury that an “alternative verdict” of causing serious harm contrary to Section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act 1997.
Justice Hunt explained the legal definition of “intention”, saying that “having a purpose must be proven” and that “the specified purpose ” of the offence must be that of “killing someone”.Â
“There isn’t always direct evidence of intention,” he explained. “Intention is proved as a matter inferred from primary or secondary facts,” he said.
Given that Bouchaker was “incapacitated very quickly and taken from the scene”, “you must assess the evidence, the facts and the inference and decide what purpose did the accused have in mind.” he told them.Â
“It must be that he had the intention of killing the children,” and this must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt,” he emphasised.Â
Should they find the accused not guilty of attempted murder in respect of the most seriously injured child, who was stabbed into the heart, he explained that an alternative verdict of causing serious harm is available, “or not guilty of any criminal endeavour is there because I can’t tell you what to do,” he said.Â
With regard to the second and third counts of attempted murder, he said that not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of assault causing harm was available to the jury as “although the circumstances speak for themselves, simply in legal terms, the harm that was caused does not reach the threshold of serious harm.”Â
“I’ll explain assault causing harm in the context of the later counts,” he said.Â
“Intention is having a purpose”, he said, adding that “premeditation is not necessary”.Â
He said intention, “must be present, may be formed instantly, and can arise in a short space of time.”
“The act and the intent must coincide,” he added.
He told the jury that “If left with a reasonable doubt on intent”, they had to acquit the accused.Â
He asked them to consider, “What did the accused do that hasn’t been established beyond reasonable doubt?”
He explained that for evidence to prove a charge of causing serious harm, the “injury which it creates” must pose a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or impairment of any bodily member or organ.
With regard to assault causing harm, he said that, “All or any of those things must be done without the consent of another; the children certainly did not consent.”
For the charge of assault causing harm to French man Alan Guille, he said that Mr Guille “took a risk that he might be injured, but you mustn’t take that as some kind of consent”.
“Look strictly within the legal definitions that apply,” he cautioned them.Â
He explained that assault is “the application of force to or causing an impact on the body of another,” and that “if that results in hurt to the other, then the offence is complete.”
The criteria for “harm” is “a very low bar”, he said, adding, “An assault may be committed directly or indirectly.”
Justice Hunt gave examples of an indirect assault, such as “someone putting acid into a hand dryer” and leaving the funnel turned up so the liquid could spray into the face of the next unsuspecting user.
Another example was “encouraging a dog to bite somebody, pushing a drunken man into another person, or tossing a firework into a crowd.”
“One thing that I should draw to your attention is count eight,” he said, explaining how this count of producing a large kitchen knife was contrary to the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act.Â
“If you’re not satisfied about attempted murder on those counts, it’s arguable that means that there is an element missing in count eight,” he said.Â
Turning to the CCTV evidence, he said that, “You must always look at it in context”, and that although it could be the case that the jury would “start out with doubts about something, those doubts can be resolved as you go along.”
“The CCTV is very helpful in one context to remind you of the context in which the witnesses gave their evidence,” he said.Â
Justice Hunt said that at the time stamp of13:36:23 on the CCTV of the incident itself, the accused “moves in” while Leanne Flynn is “dealing with the coat of a child”.Â
“He’s in among the children for 5 seconds at 13:28:28; he ‘engages with Ms Flynn, he added, noting that he was using that word deliberately, that ‘engagement ceases three seconds later, and the third phase continues until second 38, when intervention happens.”
He went over the evidence of Ms Flynn, saying that she “noticed a man in dark clothing who appeared unusual and seemed to be looking around” in a bag, and had waited until after a bus had moved off.Â
The judge is continuing his charge by summarising the evidence in the case.
This will close in 10 seconds