An armed teenager’s chasing of two boys during an alleged murderous attack was “perfunctory and ineffectual”, his barrister has told a jury.
Mason Rist, 15, and Max Dixon, 16, died from stab wounds after being chased by four armed teenagers on January 27 this year in Bristol.
Prosecutors allege the teenagers, Riley Tolliver, 18, and three boys aged 15, 16 and 17, had been driven to and from Knowle West by Antony Snook, 45, as part of a revenge mission.
The two boys had been wrongly identified as being responsible for bricks being thrown at a house in the rival Hartcliffe district earlier that evening.
They pair were attacked shortly after leaving Mason’s home on Ilminster Avenue, Bristol Crown Court heard.
A CCTV camera on Mason’s house captured how the attack lasted just 33 seconds, including Snook’s Audi stopping, four teenagers allegedly jumping out, attacking the two friends, returning to the car and it driving off.
In a closing speech, Anna Vigars KC, representing the 16-year-old, suggested her client did not have any intention to kill or cause really serious harm to Max or Mason when he got out of Snook’s Audi.
“He didn’t spring into action – he gets left behind.
“He didn’t know what the plan was, if there was a plan,” Mrs Vigars said.
“It isn’t just that his heart was not in it, but his intention was not either.
“If you study him, he is one of the first out of the car and he has a weapon in his hands but almost immediately he is left behind by the others.
“The fact he became so detached from the others shows a separation of intention.
“This video shows a lack of intention.
“He is starting out jointly but when the moment comes where he could have demonstrated his intentions and properly joined in, he very obviously chooses not to.
“It is perfunctory, ineffectual joining in.”
Mrs Vigars also her client was not involved in any discussions that took place at the property in Hartcliffe having only been there briefly after returning from Swindon before leaving for Knowle West.
She suggested the reason he had a weapon with him was to scare those responsible for the attack on the house.
“He knew he was about to go out with a large knife and he also probably knew the 17-year-old had a large knife on him,” she said.
“He could have intended to terrify people.
“To do that you need a really large knife.
“If you have a vegetable knife that is not going to scare anyone.
“It is what you would carry if you wanted to create deep terror and fear – making them fear for their lives.
“Make them fear about not going to that property in Hartcliffe ever again.”
Mason and Max sustained fatal stab injuries and both died in hospital in the early hours of January 28.
The 15-year-old boy on trial has admitted murdering Mason but denies murdering Max.
The 17-year-old boy has admitted manslaughter relating to Max but denies murdering Max and Mason.
Snook, Tolliver, the 16-year-old boy and the 17-year-old boy are charged with murdering Mason, together with the 15-year-old boy, on January 27 this year.
Snook, Tolliver and the three teenage boys are charged with murdering Max on the same date.
Earlier, Christopher Quinlan KC, representing the 17-year-old, said his client had admitted the manslaughter of Max but denied inflicting any injury to Mason.
“He has admitted unlawfully killing another child,” he said.
“When you look at what he denies doing let’s look at through the prism of what he has had the guts to admit.”
The jury were shown the CCTV footage of Mason, after being struck by the 15-year-old, getting to his feet, with prosecutors then alleging the 17-year-old inflicted a second blow to him.
But Mr Quinlan suggested an alternative, telling jurors: “He had managed to get to his feet but because of the injury he sustained he wasn’t able to stand, as the 17-year-old passes him.
“We say when you divorce Mason’s movements from the 17-year-old then the evidence is not there that he did stab him or make contact with him.
“He accepts what he did as far as Max is concerned.
“So what we say is whatever happened to Mason at Riley Tolliver and the 15-year-old’s hands, he was not encouraging or assisting it.
“He was at all times engaged with Max.”
Mr Quinlan suggested the evidence did not point to a plan to kill or cause really serious harm and in fact what happened was a result of “panic” rather than a plan.
He suggested the teenager had left Hartcliffe in view of CCTV cameras, travelled to Knowle West in an “easily identifiable” car and had left clothing behind in that vehicle.
“What happens shows spontaneity and not a plan to cause really serious harm,” he said.
“Could it show that what happened started and then spiralled well beyond what any of them intended?”
Ignatius Hughes KC, representing Riley Tolliver, said his client had not struck Mason with a “sword, machete or zombie knife”.
“A baseball bat is a very different choice of weapon to go out with than a great big zombie knife,” he said.
“That maybe a more important indicator of his level of intention. You can cause really serious harm with a bat. You can take a head shot.
“There is no injury to the head of either Max or Mason.
“He had an opportunity to cause really serious injury to Mason, but he didn’t do it.”
The trial continues.
