Jurors should “rightly be disgusted, appalled and angry” at the behaviour of a 15-year-old boy on trial for the alleged murder of a pensioner, but the teenager did not intend to kill him, his defence barrister has said.
The boy, who cannot be named because of his age, denies murder and an alternative count of manslaughter in relation to the death of 80-year-old Bhim Kohli, who died in hospital a day after suffering fractured ribs and a broken neck in an alleged attack in a park near Leicester on September 1 last year.
The youth’s co-defendant, a 13-year-old girl who also cannot be identified, denies manslaughter after allegedly encouraging the youth to attack Mr Kohli in Franklin Park in Braunstone Town.
Addressing members of the jury at Leicester Crown Court on Wednesday, Balraj Bhatia KC, defending the boy, said his client had admitted he had told “stupid lies” on several occasions and had “bigged himself up and bragged about it”, but that he is not a murderer.
He said the jury would be right to be “appalled” at the behaviour displayed by the boy in two video clips filmed by the girl which appeared to show him without either of his sliders on his feet, and using one of them to slap Mr Kohli.
“A 14-year-old boy, striking an 80-year-old man who is on his knees with a slider that he is holding – no matter how light it was, it was a forceful blow without any justification,” Mr Bhatia said.
“If there had been a count on the indictment reflecting those actions in terms of a common assault, you would have no hesitation, I’m sure, of finding him guilty, convicting on that clip one of his behaviour and you would be right to do so.
“But that is not on the indictment, what is on the indictment is an allegation of murder.”
He added: “You should bear their ages in mind when considering what their intentions were. You would be forgiven for disliking (the boy), but that’s not the test here.
“The test is approaching the evidence without those emotions and assessing it.”
Mr Bhatia said the boy had “no animosity and no beef” towards Mr Kohli, who he had never seen or met before September 1 last year, and said a third video clip – in which the boy can be heard saying “you don’t hit a girl” – offered an explanation for why the boy pushed the elderly man.
He said: “What triggered him to say that? There can only be one answer, because Mr Kohli was about to strike (the girl).
“You heard from the boy in his prepared statement – ‘I thought he was about to hit her, I ran over, hit him, and the momentum, my words, caused me to fall on top of him’.
“Who was the aggressor – Mr Kohli or (the boy)? Why were (those words) said? Mr Kohli was angry, justifiably. But what was he about to do?
“A 14-year-old runs across and pushes him. In the heat of the moment, was that reasonable? It stopped Mr Kohli from attacking (the girl).
“If you accept that that is what the purpose was, then there is no issue here of intent, it was a lawful defence.
“As unlikeable as he is, the issue you have to decide is his actions and his intention.”
The barrister said one of the video clips shows Mr Kohli “wants a confrontation” after his first encounter with the youths, adding: “He had every right to be angry and annoyed but he could simply have called the police, he could have walked away.”
Mr Bhatia said the injuries received by Mr Kohli could easily have been caused by an innocent fall at his allotment and medical evidence suggested there was no sustained assault.
He said: “There’s no good saying it was a sustained, vicious, assault on a defenceless old man unless they have the evidence to back it up.
“That allows you to say (the boy) was a complete shit, I don’t like him, I don’t like the way he behaved, but am I sure he’s a murderer, am I sure he had the intent to cause Mr Kohli, a man he had never met, really serious injury?
“A boy who has no previous convictions, no DNA or template for this sort of behaviour.
“The sympathy aspect has to be put to one side. The evidence must make you sure.
“(The boy) gave evidence – he didn’t have to, he wanted to tell his story so you could judge him.
“He knew he said stupid things, he knew he bigged himself up and bragged about it.
“His lies, take them into account, he was 14, panicked, stupid.
“What he did when he was looking you in the eye was accept he lied about a number of things. He said ‘here I am, warts and all, I’ve been bloody stupid but I didn’t intend to kill him’.
“If you take that and the evidence, you will come to the right result. He cannot be guilty of either murder or manslaughter.
“He may be many things but he isn’t a murderer and I invite you, as difficult as it is, to come to verdicts of not guilty.”
The trial continues.
