Closing statements made in murder trial of Northampton man Tommy Boom as jury told to decide whether it was murder or self defence

The trial of Daniel Larman and Kieran Okocha-Sleight, accused in connection with the murder of Tommy Boom, has seen the prosecution and defence give their closing statements on Monday (January 20).

Mr Boom sadly died in Miller’s Meadow in Semilong on 18 July, just after midnight, after he was stabbed by 21-year-old Daniel Larman from Birmingham, who was accompanied by friend and fellow drug dealing partner Kieran Okocha-Sleight.

Prosecutor Gordon Aspden KC and Michael Magarian KC, defence counsel for Larman, addressed the jury with their interpretations of the evidence presented.

Mr Aspden opened, saying: “What is the answer the Crown suggests (to self-defence)? It is an emphatic no: Daniel Larman could not have believed, in the circumstances he faced, that there was a threat toward him. Members of the jury, a person who is an aggressor is not acting in lawful self-defence. Similarly, a person who uses violence ‘to get his get back’—that is, to settle a score or act out of revenge—is not acting in lawful self-defence.

“The evidence here suggests that there was nothing lawful about the way Daniel Larman behaved. This remains true, however unappealing Tommy Boom’s behaviour and character may have been. That is because the character of the victim is not a defence to murder, even if the man who was killed had a bad character.”

Mr Aspden addressed the multiple videos Larman made after the killing, including one 10 minutes afterwards of the blood-stained large hunting knife used to kill Mr Boom.

Mr Aspden said: “He (Larman) said he filmed that because he required the light from his phone to make that film in order to examine the blade on that knife for blood. Do you, members of the jury, think for one moment he was telling the truth when he said that? He had to make that video to examine the knife... if he’s lying about that to you on oath, what does that tell you about him? What does that tell you about his regard for you in these proceedings?

“If he’s lying about that, it tells you a lot about him. We suggest he came out with that explanation because he couldn’t bring himself to say that he was very pleased with what he had just done. He wanted others to know about it and to use it as a souvenir.

“It shows a large illegal weapon soiled with blood. You can hear, ‘real, real, real, f*****g hell, come on,’ ten minutes after Tommy Boom has been fatally wounded—not a hint of remorse, shock, or fear. Then there’s the putting of the (Snapchat) banner on it. He’s still up at 3am, attaching that banner to his video. He’s proud of himself. Why else would you attach the words: ‘Just had to juice one guy’? Not a hint of shock, remorse, or self-defence.”

Mr Aspden continued to highlight the videos made after the killing, this time regarding Larman’s recording of his blood-splattered trainer with a banner containing three crying with laughter emojis over the top of it.

Mr Aspden said: “What does that banner tell you about his attitude toward what he’s just done? Is that banner consistent with a man who is frightened, in shock, or someone who just had to defend himself? Or is it consistent with a man who is glorying in what he’s done and finding it amusing? Not one, but three crying-with-laughter emojis.”

Addressing text messages the next day between Larman and a friend in his hometown of Birmingham, Mr Aspden said: “And then there’s the text message: ‘Got my get back x2.’ Why ‘x2’? I asked him, and again, he couldn’t explain why he sent that message or why he added ‘x2.’ The meaning is obvious: he’s talking about getting his payback with those two blows. He has the audacity—the brass neck—to say, ‘Yep, this is all funny. Just juiced a guy, and better still, I’ll get self-defence anyway, bro.’

“And then Larman’s friend responds, saying: ‘Minor.’ Is that where we’ve reached in this day and age? Minor?”

Concluding, Mr Asdpen said: "This was a deliberate stabbing with severe force, using a hunting knife, resulting in death within minutes. Is that reasonable? What did Daniel Larman intend? At the very least, he intended to cause Tommy Boom some really serious injury.”

Finally, Aspden discussed Okocha Sleight’s involvement in the crime, noting that his presence at the scene indicated he was fully aware of the potential for violence.

Mr Aspden said: “We suggest that by his presence at the park, involved in drug dealing through their joint business selling heroin and crack, he was intentionally providing support and backup to Daniel Larman. He knew about Daniel Larman's knife and understood that if the need arose, Larman would use it against anyone who stood in their way. In this way, Kieran Okocha-Sleight signed up to the use of that knife in their joint business—much like the man in the getaway car when a firearm is used in a robbery. This was a ruthless business. Violence and carrying weapons are part and parcel of drug dealing of this kind.”

Mr Magarian responded, addressing the jury. He said: “This is a clear case of self-defence once you put to one side the prejudice my client is involved in this horrible world of drugs and that he has a knife. Was he under attack? Yes, he was. From a pretty violent individual, and if he knew about that person’s reputation and what he was capable of.

“It’s blindingly obvious. Two men jumping out of bushes in a dark park at midnight—is that not a threat? Of course, this was a threat to these two young men. He did face a threat; his reaction was a proportionate reaction. It’s a desperate lunge out (with the knife).”

He continued: “The person who has died in this case has been in the act of robbing people many times. He picked on these two because he knew they’d be ‘easy.’

Mr Magarian referenced Mr Boom’s violent past and described it as ‘psychopathic’ violence toward others he had dealt with before.

Explaining Larman's history of walking around with knives, Mr Magarian said: “He habitually goes around with a knife... It’s a sad reality in modern life that young men feel, in order to make themselves feel safe, they need to go around with a knife. That doesn’t mean they’re gagging to use the knife. It means if they get into trouble, brandishing it so the person giving the trouble will back off, and you’ll get out of it safe.

“If he hadn’t had the knife on him, maybe he would have been the one who was killed. Maybe it’s a good thing he had a knife on him during this incident. Is it inconceivable Tommy Boom had a knife, given his history?

“They (Larman and Okocha-Sleight) didn’t choose to be in that park. If Tommy Boom hadn’t lured them to the park, he’d still be alive today. It was his decision.”

Okocha-Sleight’s lawyer will be making his closing statement tomorrow morning, and then the jury will be sent out to deliberate.

His Honour Judge Rupert Mayo has outlined key questions for the jury to work out if it was reasonable or unreasonable force used by Larman and if it was self-defence, manslaughter, or murder.

Helping the jury to understand what is and isn’t disproportionate, Judge Mayo used the analogy, saying that if ‘Janet is waving a stick of celery at John and John responds by firing a rocket launcher at her, that is disproportionate.’

The trial continues.