Men in jury confusion in jail unlawfully - High Court

Adrian Keise was stabbed outside Waterloo station in October 2022

Three men facing a retrial for killing a man in central London following a jury forewoman "mistake" are being detained unlawfully and should be released, the High Court has heard.

Last month, brothers Paul and Matthew Yusuff and their friend Moussa Traore were cleared of murdering Adrian Kise, 32, who was fatally stabbed outside Waterloo station.

However, despite the jury forewoman twice being asked if the verdicts were unanimous, the judge reconvened the court minutes later when a note was received about juror disagreements, and he ordered them to continue deliberating.

The jury did not go on to reach verdicts on charges of murder or manslaughter for all three defendants and was later discharged byJudge Charles Gratwicke after a total of 12 hours and 44 minutes of deliberating.

They found Paul Yusuff, 21, not guilty of possessing a blade or point.

At a High Court hearing in London on Thursday, lawyers for the three men - who denied all the charges and remain in HMP Belmarsh pending a possible re-trial later this year - argued that the first not guilty verdicts were “valid” and should not have been “re-opened”.

Kerim Fuad KC, representing Paul Yusuff, said the ongoing detention of the trio was "illegal" as proceedings had become a "nullity" after the jury were discharged following the initial verdicts.

He emphasized the first verdicts were unanimous and lawfully received without dissent.

The barrister highlighted that once dismissed, the jury, no longer under oath, had "ample time" to discuss the case, compromising the verdict's integrity.

He said it was "equally likely" there was a "change of mind" within the 17 minutes before the alleged mistake was raised.

'Change of mind'

Felicity Gerry KC, representing Matthew Yusuff, 23, said the point to have questioned "any slip" by the jury was when they were in court giving their initial verdicts.

"The verdicts should not have been re-opened in any way," she said, adding that inquiries could not be made into the jury's deliberations.

Jonathan Hall KC, representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said that "an error was clearly made", which had been "communicated very quickly", after which Judge Gratwicke had "properly exercised his discretion to allow rectification of the jury's mistake".

In written arguments, he said it could not be claimed the jury forewoman saying she had made a mistake "was somehow untrue or inaccurate".

"The possibility of a change of mind by the jury can be excluded in this case," the barrister said, noting that jurors had previously indicated they were divided in a note to the judge before the allegedly mistaken verdicts.

"The interests of justice do not demand that a clear error by the forewoman should stand as the outcome of the trial for these grave alleged offences," the barrister said.

Mr Hall argued the High Court did not have the power to intervene in the case.

Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Hilliard will give their ruling at a later date.

A provisional retrial date for 2 December has been already been set for the defendants.