Six Defendants Plead Not Guilty to Involvement in Cocaine User’s Murder Plot

During a murder trial, six individuals facing charges have asserted their innocence regarding any involvement in a scheme to fatally injure or inflict severe harm upon a man discovered deceased at his residence. Ian Staves’ remains were discovered at his Cherry Lane home in Wootton, North Lincolnshire, on September 12, 2022, following his death the preceding night. Bradford Crown Court was informed that Mr Staves sustained punches, kicks, and stamps before being strangled, an act described as part of a “carefully orchestrated” conspiracy aimed at stealing his illicit drugs. Each of the six defendants has entered pleas of not guilty to both murder and manslaughter charges. The accused individuals are: Prosecutor Tom Storey KC informed the court: “Ian Staves was killed pursuant to a plan put together by these defendants – they all played a part.” He further stated: “That plan was at least to cause Mr Staves serious harm, which makes them guilty of murder.” Earlier proceedings in the court revealed that Mr Staves consumed cocaine and suffered from an enlarged heart, potentially attributable to being overweight or having elevated blood pressure. Patrick and Jamie Smith, two of the defendants, have confessed to a charge of conspiracy to burgle, while the remaining four have pleaded not guilty to this accusation. John Harrison KC, representing Patrick Smith, informed the court that despite his client’s involvement in a criminal agreement to commit theft from Mr Staves, he never intended to inflict serious harm upon anyone. It was disclosed to the court that Mr Smith participated in a “reconnaissance trip” to Mr Staves’ residence and also journeyed in a stolen Vauxhall Corsa to Wootton on the evening the assault occurred. His barrister questioned: “Was he showing others the location of the target address for the intended burglary?” Surveillance footage recorded three individuals arriving at Mr Staves’ property, and the court was told he was killed sometime between 22:26 BST and 22:52. Additionally, a fourth individual was observed entering an adjacent driveway. Mr Smith’s barrister stated that none of the individuals visible on the CCTV footage possessed the same build as Mr Smith, and his client was dressed in distinct attire. The court learned that Mr Smith was later dropped off by Mr St Clair at the Gilson Hotel in Hull that night after his phone battery depleted, as he wished to avoid disturbing his father, whom he characterized as “scary”. His barrister argued to the court: “Surely, he would not have been seen checking into a hotel to charge his phone if he had been involved in a murder.” John Femi-Ola KC, representing Mr Windas, informed the court: “The Crown say that from a set of facts you can infer that Mr Windas was party to a joint plan to kill, or cause really serious harm to Mr Staves.” He continued: “What we submit is the case against him is flimsy, and rests entirely on association evidence and inferences such as turning his phone off [on the night Mr Staves was killed].” The court was presented with information indicating an absence of forensic evidence connecting him to Mr Staves’ property, or any proof that he had even departed Hull on the night of the incident. Mark Rhind KC, representing Mr St Clair, informed the jury that it was acknowledged that CCTV footage depicted his client’s vehicle in Wootton the afternoon before the assault, with Jamie Smith occupying the passenger seat. He told the court that during this period, Mr Smith had uploaded an image of a house listed for sale to Snapchat. He questioned the jury as to why he would perform this action if Mr St Clair was involved in the scheme. He proposed: “I suggest the obvious answer was it was a pretence – Jamie smith was pretending he was interested in that house.” He further inquired: “Who could he have been pretending to? Not Patrick Smith as he was in the back seat. The only other person was Mr St Clair.” Mr Rhind contended that the prosecution’s argument, asserting a deliberate intention to gravely injure Mr Staves, was unsound. He characterized Mr Staves as an “inoffensive drug dealer from rural Lincolnshire – not the Godfather”. Rupert Doswell KC, barrister for Jamie Smith, stated that his client had confessed to participating in a conspiracy to burgle and to being involved in the reconnaissance of the premises. Nevertheless, he asserted that following the reconnaissance, Mr Smith had journeyed to Goole, staying there for the entire evening. He claimed his client had “played a limited role” and that “there was no evidence” indicating his involvement in the events at the house. He further mentioned that his client desired the jury to be aware of his prior convictions, which pertained to theft and handling stolen goods, with no instances involving violence. John Elvidge KC, representing Mr Furtado, informed the court that no evidence existed to suggest his client’s participation in the reconnaissance or any interactions with the co-defendants prior to approximately 20:30 BST on the night Mr Staves died. He remarked: “So, if he was involved in some way – it’s late.” He further stated that there was no forensic evidence connecting his client to the crime scene and that his client lacked any motive to harm Mr Staves. Ahmed Hossain KC, barrister for Bobby Gibson, informed the court that his client was responsible for obtaining the stolen Corsa. His barrister posed the question: “Does that lead to an inference that it was going to be used in a criminal activity?” He then answered the jury: “Yes.” He then added: “Does it equate to knowledge intending harm to someone? No, of course it doesn’t.” He informed the court that his client possessed an “interest” in stolen vehicles and bicycles, commenting: “It’s a massive leap to go from an interest in stolen cars to a planned murder.” He also mentioned that Mr Gibson had confessed to being one of the individuals captured on CCTV at Mr Staves’ doorway. However, he stated: “Something he is not expecting happens, and he runs away – tripping as he goes.” The legal proceedings are ongoing. For highlights from Lincolnshire, listen on BBC Sounds, view the most recent episode of Look North, or submit a story you believe warrants coverage here. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the material found on external websites. Information regarding our policy on external linking is available.