In court the teenager sat slumped in his seat, eyes fixed on his feet. In June 2024 he had been a different figure entirely: shouting abuse, thrashing against officers and, according to them, lashing out with kicks and a deliberate stamp.
PC Paul Martin, a 15-year police veteran stationed at Bethnal Green, recalled the evening of 19 June 2024. Dressed in plain clothes, he said he had spotted the 17-year-old acting “in a suspicious way” and moved in. A search turned up a small amount of cannabis, £250 in cash, and an iPhone.
The mobile was examined, leading officers to arrest the boy in connection with the supply of Class A drugs.
PC Martin explained that “immediately prior to being arrested [the boy appeared] generally calm, a little bit flippant, nothing more,” but after being arrested “his demeanour rapidly went downhill,” with the boy “screaming” and “shouting out loud.”
The officer said he believed this was “to make family members aware of what was going on,” given the arrest occurred “very close to the home address, quite literally a stone’s throw away.”
Despite moving the boy around the corner, he “continued becoming aggressive,” “screaming and shouting at us, and at members of the public.”
The constable told the court he heard another officer say words to the effect of: “Don’t you try and headbutt my colleague,” an attempt apparently at PC Martin.
“Almost immediately, within seconds, because of the way I was holding him, I felt a body shift and heard [my colleague] say: ‘Stop kicking me, don’t kick me again.’”
It was this alleged kick which formed one of the two charges.
“At that moment, I told [the defendant] I was arresting him for assaulting police, because we’re used to saying that – technically it’s assaulting an emergency worker.”
It was at that point the second assault was said to have happened, with PC Martin claiming the boy performed “a deliberate stamp down” on his right foot. He said he anticipated this as “I’ve been a police officer for 15 years. You can feel when something is coming.”
The prosecutor asked how forceful, on a scale of 1–10, he found the stamp. He replied: “Around an 8… enough for me to feel the pain go through my foot.”
“His attempts to escape continued. We made the decision to take him to the floor, where it was easier to control him and was less risk to myself and colleagues.”
The court was shown police body-worn video footage of the incident, which broadly confirmed the officer’s account, although he noted there was “a slightly longer delay than I remembered before he delivered that drill down into my foot.”
While the boy had been aggressively shouting “you f**king pig, you f**king wanker” in the video, in court he adopted a different demeanour – staring firmly at his feet while slumped back in his chair.
Following the arrest, his home address was searched, leading to the discovery of “a very large quantity of drugs.” These were in “a locked blue metal box… within that box were significant quantities of drugs: 80g cannabis, 11g heroin, 20g of crack cocaine, also ecstasy and ketamine.” The total value was said to be between £5,000 and £6,500.
The defendant had already pleaded guilty to three matters involving the intent to supply diamorphine, cocaine, and cannabis at the start of the hearing. He had also admitted to having criminal property, namely some £1,800 in cash.
The court heard from a second officer who explained how the boy had “kicked backwards, with intent, towards my groin area” with “a force of 4 or 5 out of 10” during the stop.
During cross-examination from Mr Singh, representing the defendant, the officer was asked if he agreed that no kicks were shown in the footage. He replied: “You wouldn’t. The camera is up here.”
After a short consultation with his barrister, it was confirmed that the defendant would not be giving evidence.
In closing submissions, Mr Singh told the court there were inconsistencies between the officers’ accounts, with “one thinking he could flee, the other saying there is no way he could get away.” He submitted they were “incorrect in their belief” they had been assaulted and asked the court to find a verdict of not guilty.
District Judge Navneet Sher disagreed, saying: “PC Martin was clear in his evidence he saw you bend your knee,” with the other officer describing “how he saw you kick back… to my mind that’s a deliberate kick… I find you guilty of both of these offences.”
Opening the case for sentencing, the prosecutor explained how the defendant’s “mobile was interrogated and a number of conversations were recovered. Those suggest very much he was dealing on his own account – first cannabis, then Class A drugs as well,” confirming it was not “because of exploitation.”
There were also messages from a “young lady urging him to stop” dealing drugs, but “he said he would carry on.”
The prosecutor concluded by asking for trial costs of £250, with compensation for the officers and forfeiture of the drugs and cash.
Mr Singh asked the court for an adjournment pending a pre-sentence report, explaining how his client had received two offers for university places starting in September. The judge expressed scepticism that these were unconditional offers and asked for proof at the next hearing.
The judge granted the request, telling the youth that the “court will look at the report and decide how best to deal with you.” Despite the defendant having turned 18, she confirmed the youth court would retain jurisdiction over the case.
The sentencing was adjourned until 2 September, with the defendant granted conditional bail in the meantime.
Stratford Youth Court
Courtroom 9
7th August 2025
Before District Judge (MC) Navneet Sher
Mouse in the Court 