Justin Yang’s client found not guilty after a 50 hour bomb threat standoff with police.

Justin’s client was accused of making threats to destroy the complainant’s house using a 15kg butane cannister as an incendiary bomb. The complainant attended court to give evidence that the defendant had repeatedly refused to remove the cannister from his room. The complainant described witnessing the defendant inhale butane on multiple occasions as part of his ongoing wider drug addiction. The defendant admitted his previous drug habits, which did include inhaling butane. He also admitted that he had been diagnosed with psychosis in the past, and had heard voices in his head. However, he explained that he required the butane on this occasion as part of his metalworking and chemistry hobby that he conducted inside his room. This included using angle grinders, oxy welding torches, and Bunsen burners.

When the complainant warned that he would have to get the police involved to remove the cannister, the defendant is alleged to have made multiple threats to set it alight and blow up the house. The complainant secretly called the police during this altercation, and recorded the exchange. Due to the proximity of the phone, only the complainant could be clearly heard.

Following the 999 call, the complainant turned off the water and gas to the property, and fled. The defendant barricaded himself, and a three-day siege began between the defendant and the police. In the early hours of the third day, counter terrorist specialist firearms officers shot CS gas rounds through the defendant’s window, and raided the house armed with assault rifles. ‘Conflict management dogs' were deployed to detain the defendant. He was wielding an angle grinder at the time. The defendant suffered injuries, including a severe dog bite. He was hospitalised for several days.

Justin undermined the complainant's credibility in his cross examination, and emphasised the likelihood of the complainant having concocted his account in an attempt to evict the defendant. He also raised the possibility that the complainant could have been innocently mistaken after having heard only certain words said by the defendant in a longer sentence. Justin was able to persuade the jury that they could not be sure, to the legal standard required, that the defendant did, in fact, make that those threats.

After trial at Woolwich CC, the jury unanimously acquitted the Defendant.

This story can be read on Sky News HERE.

Justin was instructed by Anne-Marie Geraghty of Blackfords LLP.