Jury to decide fate of Newham man accused of murdering a drug addict
PUBLISHED: 10:40 10 April 2018
The jury will soon begin deliberations in the case of a man from Newham who is accused of stabbing a drug addict to death.
Judge Wendy Joseph QC began to sum up the crown’s case against four men accused of murder on Monday, April 9 at The Old Bailey, before the twelve jurors begin their deliberations.
Liam Harman was reportedly attacked by three men in a communal stairwell on July 11 last year in Straight Road, Harold Hill.
Nathan Charles, 22, of Lowbrook Road, Ilford, has been accused of murdering Liam, along with Cedric Kyiago, 21, with addresses in Romford and Harold Hill, Kamal Hamilton-Albert, 21, from Highfield Road in Woodford Green and Gleneson Mark, 23, from Whitta Road, Manor Park in Newham.
Judge Joseph told the jury that there were three ways in which the defendants could be guilty of murder.
If the jury agree that the accused stabbed Liam, or if they were present in the communal area in which he was allegedly attacked, or if they think the defendant took part in organising the stabbing, then they are guilty of murder.
Judge Joseph also reminded the court of the two main areas of dispute in the case.
The first area of dispute refers to the day of Liam’s reported attack in July, when Mr Kyiago claims he was not in the area of the flats in Harold Hill at the time of the killing.
He claims that he remained at home while Mr Charles, Mr Hamilton-Albert and Mr Mark travelled to Harold Hill for a drug deal.
Mr Hamilton-Albert and Mr Mark contradicted Mr Kyiago’s account by saying that he was also present at the flats.
The second dispute refers to when the four defendants met at Nando’s a couple days after Liam’s death.
Mr Hamilton-Albert said that Mr Kyiago confessed to stabbing Liam, while Mr Mark said Mr Kyiago had only confessed to there having been some “madness”, but Mr Kyiago did not say that he was involved or confess to stabbing Liam.
Judge Joseph said: “It’s clear to us that they are not all saying the same thing.
“When the evidence from one defendant brings on the case of another defendant, you should have in mind that the defendant may have interests of his own, and he may have tailored his evidence accordingly.”
Judge Joseph explained that the person who had ownership of the phone with the number used as a drug line referred to as ‘two point’, was of critical importance to the case.
This is because Liam received threatening text messages from this number that read, “You’re a dead man”.
“Everyone agrees that [this number] was known as the two point drug line, but whose phone was it, and does it actually matter whose it was?
“In one sense it may have importance who owned [the number] because if it was the dealer who owned it, he may have been the man who had motive to kill Liam.”
Mr Kyiago previously told the court that he was not the drug dealer, known as Two Point and that he would not reveal the identity of Two Point for fear of his own safety.
Judge Joseph reminded the jury that prosecutor Oliver Glasgow QC had suggested that the man called Two Point Mr Kyiago described to the court was a “figment of his own imagination” and that details of Mr Kyiago’s description were drawn from a character in the Netflix programme, Power.
The trial continues.