A private prosecution case at Huntingdon Crown Court concluded unexpectedly on 20 August 2025, when the defendant, LM, was acquitted following the prosecution witness’s refusal to return to court to complete cross-examination. The case, which involved serious charges of s18 wounding with a knife and a defence of self-defence, took an unexpected turn when the complainant failed to attend court the next day, derailing the prosecution’s case and ultimately leading to the defendant’s acquittal.
The Case Against LM
Mitch Cohen, a seasoned criminal defence solicitor, was defending LM, who had been accused of causing severe wounds to the complainant’s legs during an altercation. The prosecution presented graphic photographs of the complainant’s injuries, which appeared to support the claim that LM had used a knife in a violent attack. However, Cohen maintained that his client had acted in self-defence after being provoked during a heated confrontation. The question of whether LM’s actions were an act of self-preservation or an unjustified assault was central to the case.
The Cross-Examination and Witness Credibility
The trial took a dramatic turn during the cross-examination of the complainant. Cohen, representing LM, began to challenge the witness’s testimony, asserting that the complainant was being aggressive, argumentative, and evasive in his answers. As the witness grew more defensive, the judge also became critical of his conduct, expressing concern over the way the complainant interrupted the questioning and failed to provide clear and truthful responses. This pattern of behaviour led Cohen to conclude that the witness’s credibility was questionable.
However, after the judge’s comments, Cohen reported feeling unwell and was unable to continue the cross-examination. The complainant was temporarily excused from the court and placed in a hotel overnight to allow time for the situation to settle. With the expectation that the witness would return the following day to finish his testimony, the court was adjourned until the next morning.
The Complainant’s Refusal to Attend Court
When proceedings resumed the following day, the complainant failed to appear. Instead of returning to court as instructed, he chose to return home. Despite the judge’s insistence that the witness attend to complete his evidence, the complainant refused to comply with the court order. The prosecution was left in a difficult position, as the absence of the complainant left them without the central piece of their case.
The judge granted a further overnight adjournment in the hopes that the complainant would reconsider his refusal and return to court. However, the following day, the witness continued to refuse to attend, prompting the prosecution to offer no further evidence. In light of this, the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, as the case had effectively collapsed without the complainant’s testimony.
The Collapse of the Prosecution’s Case
The case, which was heavily reliant on the complainant’s version of events, ultimately became untenable without his cooperation. The judge’s direction to the jury highlighted the critical role that witnesses play in a trial, particularly when their testimony forms the basis of the prosecution’s case. The prosecution’s inability to present further evidence and the witness’s failure to return to court led to the unexpected acquittal of LM, who was left without a case to answer.
Faced with no evidence from the prosecution, the judge had little option but to direct the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict. This dramatic turn of events illustrates the fragile nature of many cases and the vital role that witnesses, particularly key ones like the complainant in this trial, play in determining the outcome of a trial. When key witnesses refuse to comply with court orders, it can render a case unsustainable, regardless of the strength of the evidence previously presented.
The Role of Private Prosecution in the Justice System
The case also highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in private prosecutions, which are brought by individuals or private entities rather than the state. In private prosecution cases, the responsibility for gathering evidence, presenting the case, and securing witnesses often falls on the individual or their legal team. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to secure the attendance of a crucial witness underscores the importance of having a cooperative witness pool for private prosecutions to succeed. Without the complainant’s testimony, the case was left in a precarious position.
Private prosecutions can serve as an essential tool in seeking justice, particularly in cases where public authorities may have overlooked or declined to prosecute. However, this case illustrates the inherent risks involved. The success of a private prosecution is often contingent on the cooperation of key witnesses, and without their participation, the case may collapse, as it did in this instance.
The Impact of Witness Cooperation on Trial Outcomes
This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of witness cooperation in the judicial process. The absence of the complainant, who was central to the prosecution’s case, left the court with no viable path forward. Even with graphic photographic evidence of the alleged injuries, the prosecution was unable to present its case in full, resulting in the defendant’s acquittal. The judge’s direction to the jury reflects the reality that without witness testimony, a case can be undermined, regardless of the physical evidence available.
Furthermore, the case underscores the complexities of self-defence claims in criminal trials. When self-defence is argued, it is not only about proving that the defendant was attacked but also about demonstrating the proportionality and reasonableness of their response. In LM’s case, the absence of the complainant meant that the jury could not fully weigh the arguments presented on both sides. However, given the prosecution’s withdrawal of evidence, the court had no choice but to acquit.
The Legal Team’s Role in Securing the Acquittal
Mitch Cohen, who was instructed by David Pirrie at BD Solicitors, played a pivotal role in securing the acquittal for LM. While Cohen’s defence was crucial, his team also had to adapt to the unpredictable nature of the trial as the witness’s behaviour disrupted the course of proceedings. Despite the lack of witness cooperation, Cohen’s strategic approach, including his challenge to the credibility of the complainant, contributed to undermining the prosecution’s case. The defence team’s ability to remain flexible and responsive in the face of an unexpected situation ensured that LM was not wrongfully convicted.
The outcome of this case underscores the fragile nature of many criminal trials. The cooperation of key witnesses can make or break a case, and the failure of a single individual to comply with court orders can derail even the most well-prepared legal proceedings. For private prosecutions, where the burden often falls on the complainant and their legal team to push the case forward, this can result in significant challenges. As demonstrated in this case, the absence of the complainant not only resulted in the collapse of the prosecution but also highlighted the complexity of securing convictions in cases reliant on witness testimony.
