Defence barristers for John Henry Sayers and his son have delivered their closing speeches at the Old Bailey, arguing that the pair acted in reasonable self-defence when they attacked Walter Patterson with a machete and a metal pole. The prosecution, they claimed, has "woefully failed to prove their case."
Incident Details
The court heard that Sayers and his son confronted Patterson after he allegedly drove a car into their home in Byker, Newcastle, and set it on fire. Sayers senior is accused of striking Patterson with a machete, while his son is alleged to have used a metal pole. Both defendants deny charges of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and the lesser alternative of GBH.
Defence Arguments
Michael Holland, representing Sayers senior, told the jury that his client feared for his son's safety, believing the younger man was about to be stabbed. Holland argued that Sayers senior went down the street to detain Patterson, acting out of a genuine fear for his life. "The prosecution have woefully failed to prove their case," Holland said. "They have had to construct this idea of nuanced intent—well maybe you wanted to defend yourself but maybe you wanted to retaliate."
Laura Miller, defending Sayers junior, highlighted that her client had no prior criminal record and was described in a character reference as "fundamentally decent." She referenced previous attacks on the Sayers family, including incidents involving weapons and vehicles used as weapons. Miller argued that the metal pole used by Sayers junior was "not really the weapon of choice in this context" and that he was "trying to protect himself and his family." She noted that Sayers junior stopped hitting Patterson once his father moved the burning car.
Trial Context
Neither John Henry Sayers nor his son chose to give evidence during the trial. The jury is now deliberating on the verdict, weighing the defence's claims of self-defence against the prosecution's case.
