Jack Woodley case: Boy's refusal to give evidence 'not proof of guilt'

Jack Woodley was repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped upon before being stabbed

A teenager's refusal to give evidence in a murder trial is not proof of his guilt, a court has heard.

Prosecutors said Jack Woodley, 18, died from a single stab wound after being attacked by a group in Houghton-le-Spring in October.

A 15-year-old boy admits manslaughter but denies murder. Nine others, all aged 14 to 18, deny both charges.

A lawyer for one of the boys told Newcastle Crown Court there was "not a shred of evidence" against him.

The court heard Mr Woodley was attacked shortly after leaving the Houghton Feast funfair on 16 October as he neared the Britannia Inn in the town centre.

In his closing statement to jurors, Alistair McDonald QC said not a "single, solitary" prosecution witness or defendant named his 15-year-old client as being involved in the melee.

Jack Woodley died in hospital a day after being attacked near the Britannia Inn in Houghton-le-Spring

Prosecutors said the boy's refusal to answer police questions or take the stand in the trial was suggestive of his guilt, saying if he had been innocent he would surely have wanted to have been "screaming from the rooftops".

But Mr McDonald said it was for the prosecution to prove their case and there was no evidence for his client, a "15-year-old boy who has never been in trouble with the police in his life now charged with the most serious of crimes", to answer to.

He said: "It's a complete subversion of the burden of proof to suggest as the prosecution did that, unless the defendant answers questions and goes the into witness box, it's in some way proof he is guilty."

He told jurors they had not heard from him during the cross-examination of witnesses because none of them had mentioned his client, adding: "What evidence did the prosecution produce to demand an answer? There was nothing [for us] to ask about."

He also said it was "common sense" the boy would have been in "utter turmoil" when he was called to the head teacher's office, where he "perhaps thought he might get a ticking off for not handing in his homework" only to be faced with police arresting him on suspicion of murder.

"As a matter of law you may not hold it against him he did not answer questions in interview with police," Mr McDonald said.

He said while a failure to give evidence in court "may provide support to the prosecution case", the jury "cannot convict either wholly or mainly because of it".

One of the 10 defendants admits stabbing Jack Woodley with a 9in (25cm) knife

Mr McDonald said his client "barely knows" the other defendants and the prosecution's claim they were a "cohesive gang who sought to launch a joint attack" was "completely unsustainable" in the boy's case.

He said jurors had been shown extensive CCTV footage of some of the defendants associating in groups before the attack, but his client wasn't in any of them.

'Frightening and confusing'

He also asked jurors to "live in the real world" when considering a number of "unrealistic points" made against the boy by the prosecution, such as that he did not phone the police, shout for help or push others away.

Mr McDonald said the boy was "in the middle of a frightening and confusing state of affairs which blew up out of nowhere and was soon over".

He said it was "unequivocal" that a short clip showing the start of the fight actually showed his client pulling the first attacker off Mr Woodley.

He said: "If he'd been a mature person it might be reasonable to say perhaps he should have carried out one or more of the suggested actions, but in fact, even mature adults very often don't do those things.

"Is it realistic to expect a person of [the boy's] tender years to do what the prosecution suggests?

"Please do not use unreasonable standards of what to expect from a 15-year-old."

The trial continues.