Jurors to consider if scaffolder’s punch was driven by anger or fear

A prosecutor stated that jurors are tasked with determining if a scaffolder, facing a murder accusation for punching a man following an England Euro 2024 football match, acted out of “anger or fear”. Oscar Jackson, 21, of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, struck Grant Wallendorf, 45, in the face on 16 June, after they had both viewed England’s victory over Serbia on television at a sports club in Ickleford. Mr. Wallendorf, also a resident of Hitchin, sustained a brain injury due to a ruptured artery and subsequently died in hospital. Mr. Jackson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and manslaughter at a Crown Court trial in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, asserted that he acted in “self-defence” and had no intention to “harm or kill”. Jurors began their deliberations on Tuesday. The jury was informed that the event involving the two men, both of whom had consumed alcohol, was recorded by CCTV footage that Mr. Wallendorf had installed at the club. Video evidence presented during the trial depicted Mr. Wallendorf gesticulating in the direction of Mr. Jackson in the club’s car park following the match, prior to being punched. Mr. Jackson informed police that Mr. Wallendorf had labeled him “disgusting” after he had urinated in bushes. He stated his belief that he was on the verge of being assaulted and had executed a “pre-emptive strike”. Simon Wilshire, the prosecuting barrister, conveyed to jurors that the central question was whether Mr. Jackson’s action was motivated by anger or by fear of an “imminent attack”. He contended that Mr. Jackson had delivered a “haymaker of a punch” fueled by anger. Mr. Wilshire did not assert that Mr. Jackson intended to kill, but rather stated that the prosecution’s position was that he intended to inflict “really serious harm”, thereby making him guilty of murder. “It was anger that drove Oscar Jackson to strike Mr Wallendorf,” Mr. Wilshire informed the jurors. “The CCTV gives the lie to Mr Jackson’s claim that he acted in a pre-emptive manner.” “There was no attack by Mr Wallendorf.” He further stated: “You look at that CCTV, and you see a man acting in anger… not in self defence.” Barrister Tana Adkin KC, representing Mr. Jackson, conveyed to jurors that the event was an “accident” and “pure self defence”. She remarked: “This case and what happened on the 16 June is absolutely tragic.” “A series of unfortunate decisions coming together.” However, she asserted that it was “not murder” and “not manslaughter”, informing jurors that Mr. Jackson was not the “aggressor”. “It was truly an accident,” she added, describing it as “The result of a rare set of circumstances.” She characterized the incident as a “proper” manifestation of the “human reaction of fight or flight” – delivering a punch “instinctively to defend yourself”. Mr. Jackson chose not to testify in his own defence during the trial. In a pre-prepared statement given after his arrest, he informed police that he had not intended to cause harm or death. He stated that he threw the punch in self-defence, believing he was on the verge of being assaulted.