A jury will have to decide whether three members of the Sayers family were on the attack or acting in self-defence during an "ugly" clash on a Newcastle street. Amid a background of 15 attacks on them by an organised crime group, it is alleged Stephen Sayers, his two sons and three other men threw glasses, bottles and punches at a car linked to the gang who had targeted them.
The Ford Ranger pickup had pulled up outside a bar on Shields Road, Byker, Newcastle, owned by Thomas Sayers. It drove onto the path towards a group of people and was then allegedly attacked.
Prosecution alleges anger and aggression
During closing speeches in the trial of six men who deny violent disorder, prosecutors suggested the men's actions may have been motivated by "anger and aggression". But defence barristers argued they were acting in lawful self-defence, fearing what might happen based on a series of attacks allegedly carried out by the Freeman family using vehicles as weapons.
Deborah Smithies, prosecuting, said each of the defendants used violence and said the jury will have to look at what they did to work out if they did so "because they genuinely felt they had to to protect themselves or whether you are sure this was not really defence but aggression".
Miss Smithies says the series of incidents perpetrated against the Sayers family before the incident were "quite horrifying". But she said: "When you watch that footage, do you see fear, do you see panic? Or do you see anger and aggression?
"One could perhaps understand when some of these defendants and their family had been targeted in this quite extreme way by this group for so long, if one of the things they would feel about that is anger, rage."
Miss Smithies added: "My suggestion is, when you look at what they did and what was happening when they did it, you can be sure none of them were really acting in self-defence or the defence of others."
Defence cites history of attacks
Laura Miller, for Stephen Sayers snr, pointed out there were 15 "extremely violent attacks on the Sayers family and their property" in the three years before this incident. She added: "There were also threats against members of the Sayers family in addition to those 15 attacks. The Freeman organised crime group, you may think, don't particularly care which member of the family feels the ramifications of their attacks."
Miss Miller said jurors may conclude the Sayers family would have been "on high alert". She added that the way the car pulled up was "not a normal way to park" and was directly pointing at the people outside the bar. She added that Stephen Sayers snr "would have been alive to that after three years of attacks".
Miss Miller said the occupants of the pickup were not simply sitting there minding their own business and beckoned someone over. She added: "You might conclude that vehicle posed a real threat. You might come to the common sense conclusion that Stephen Sayers snr had perceived that vehicle as a threat.
"He had not armed himself. He had the glass already in his hand. He goes towards that vehicle but he doesn't throw the glass until the vehicle starts to lunge, you might think, towards him."
Miss Miller continued: "The throwing of that one glass is all that Stephen Sayers snr did. That one throw of the glass is the prosecution case against him.
"They talk about vigilante justice and anger informing his actions. If it was anger, that anger didn't last very long did it? I invite you to consider whether it's fair and plausible that that glass was thrown to deter and distract and stop an attack he perceived.
"Can you really rule out that he genuinely perceived himself to be in danger or that he perceived his sons to be in danger or that he perceived the people outside that bar to be in danger."
Miss Miller added: "The Freeman organised crime group uses vehicles as weapons to ram buildings. It's a group that uses fire as a weapon, crashes vehicles, sets them alight and discards them or crashes vehicles into buildings causing significant damage.
"It's a group that when they do get out of the vehicle, they have weapons. You might think the people in that vehicle were unknown threats."
Miss Miller concluded by saying: "Stephen Sayers has to prove nothing to you. On the evidence, Stephen Sayers snr is not guilty and we invite you to find him not guilty."
Other defendants' arguments
Jane Foley, for Stephen Sayers jnr, said: "The defence invites you to ask whether what you are actually seeing is people responding to a threat. There's no dispute this became an ugly scene and there's no dispute some force was used.
"You have seen Stephen Sayers jnr strike the vehicle with his hands and try to open the door of the vehicle. In the circumstances shown here he might be trying to interrupt the vehicle's advance and bring a perceived threat to an end."
Penny Hall, for Thomas Sayers, asked jurors to consider what they would do in the circumstances, with the background of attacks and a vehicle driving towards them and their premises. She said: "Would you try to stop that vehicle from hitting anyone, try to stop it from hitting the property, try to get it to go away? Would you have done anything different to what we see Thomas Sayers do in that footage?"
Miss Hall added: "It's only when the vehicle is actively coming towards the people and property that anyone does anything. Thomas Sayers throws a bottle he had in his hand before the vehicle arrived.
"You might think those males are simply trying to get the vehicle to leave, to go away. What would have happened if it had not been chased away?"
Miss Hall said jurors may think Northumbria Police made less effort than they might have expected to identify the people in the pickup. She said they made no effort to speak to the registered keeper, despite knowing who it was.
Miss Hall added: "If you conclude Thomas Sayers was or might have been defending himself, others or his business property, you will find him not guilty and that is what I invite you to do."
John Wilkinson, for Brown, said: "What did he actually do? He threw one thing at that vehicle. It's not clear if it was a glass or bottle or the contents of a glass or bottle."
Mr Wilkinson added: "This case, frankly, should never have seen the light of day. If that is your view, you will have no hesitation in finding Anthony Brown not guilty of this charge."
Ian Cook, for Jamieson, said: "They weren't looking for trouble that evening, they were out enjoying a drink. But trouble came to them.
"Might he have had a heightened sense of fear and anxiety when seeing the vehicle, a heightened sense of dread when faced with a two-and-a-half tonne potentially battering ram or potential incendiary device, mounting the pavement towards people enjoying a drink on a summer's evening, given the callous acts of violence committed against the Sayers family over the preceding three years."
Mr Cook adds: "It's only when the vehicle lunges forward in the direction where Lee Jamieson had just been stood that he grabbed a glass and threw it towards the Ford Ranger."
Mairi Clancy, for Fraser, said: "It's reasonable for Mr Fraser to worry things could have got a lot worse. The people behind these violent attacks often go a lot further than they did on this occasion.
"Two pint glasses are no match for the two-and-a-half tonne truck when you are out having a drink with your friends and I invite you to find Mr Fraser not guilty."
Stephen Sayers, 61, Stephen Sayers Jnr, 33, Thomas Sayers, 31, Anthony Brown, 24, Lee Jamieson, 22 and Bradley Fraser, 26, all deny violent disorder. The trial continues.
