26/05/2010
The decision to prosecute a trainee builder for murder after he stabbed a teenage burglar to death was "erroneous", a court heard today.
Omari Roberts, 23, was formally found not guilty over the death of 17-year-old Tyler Juett.
He stabbed the teenager after he discovered him ransacking his mother's house in the Basford area of Nottingham in March last year.
He was later charged with murder and attacking Juett's 14-year-old accomplice, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Roberts was due to go on trial at Nottingham Crown Court today but at the "11th hour" the Crown Prosecution Service took the decision to drop the charges.
The court heard today that the decision to drop the charges came after Juett's accomplice was re-interviewed by detectives two weeks before Easter.
The youngster, who is now 15, suffered two stab wounds to his right knee during an initial confrontation with Roberts in the kitchen of his mother's semi-detached house.
He claimed he then fled the house with Roberts in pursuit. Prosecutors said this gave them a realistic chance of success as it meant Roberts would have had time to call police.
But in the interview last month, the boy admitted he waited for Juett outside the house. This supported the assertion by Roberts that his struggle with Juett immediately followed a fight with the boy, Gregory Dickinson QC, prosecuting, said.
The teenage accomplice also claimed to a social worker following the burglary that he did have a knife, despite telling police he was unarmed.
He bragged: "I wasn't bothered about killing him (Roberts). If I had the chance I would have killed him."
Jerome Lynch QC, defending, said Juett's accomplice had an Asbo banning him from Basford as well as a string of convictions for violent offences.
He said: "The basis on which this case is being dropped at the 11th hour is a matter of public interest. It's clear that the prosecution's case has always been predicated on the reliability of this (boy).
"In our submission that was never a realistic approach. They relied on what he was saying, the veracity of what he was saying, and in our submission that was a flawed and erroneous approach."
In court, a row broke out over whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, was involved in the decision to prosecute Roberts.
Ten days ago the CPS said Mr Starmer was involved in the decision, although he did not take it. At an earlier court hearing, a prosecuting lawyer also admitted the DPP was involved in the decision.
But Mr Dickinson claimed today that Mr Starmer was not involved in the case.
He said: "There have been reports that the DPP was personally involved. In fact, the DPP was not involved in the decision to prosecute or the decision to offer no evidence.
"The decision in this case was made purely by applying the law to the facts of the case."
Mr Lynch said the DPP should have been involved.
He said: "In cases of this kind, the DPP should be involved because then we would have someone to point the finger at."
Outside court, the barrister added: "Personally, I think he (the DPP) should apologise to this family. It's tragic."
Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP for Newark, has campaigned for the law to be changed. At present, home-owners are not allowed to use "unreasonable force" but he thinks this should be strengthened to "grossly disproportionate force".
In 2005, Mr Mercer had his Householder Protection Bill, a Private Member's Bill, struck down.
He said: "A large number of people are arrested, cautioned, examined, charged and then when they come to court the whole thing is dropped.
"If you raise the threshold, a lot of these cases would never be brought and you won't waste the court's time and, most importantly, the home-owners'."
