1. News
  2. UK
  3. Crime

Finsbury Park attack trial - as it happened: Darren Osborne faces life imprisonment after being found guilty of murder

Live Blog

Father-of-four from Cardiff had denied the offences

Click to follow
The Independent Online

Key Points

The Finsbury Park terror attacker faces life imprisonment of being convicted of murder and attempted murder.

A jury took just under an hour to reach the unanimous verdicts, disregarding Darren Osborne’s unsubstantiated claim another man ploughed a van into Muslim worshippers leaving mosques after Ramadan prayers.

The atrocity, shortly after midnight on 19 June, killed one man and injured nine other victims.

Justice Cheema-Grubb said she would sentence Mr Osborne on Friday morning.

Thanking the jury for their service, she added: "These verdicts have an impact far wider than inside this courtroom...they are one of hte most important things you have done in your lives."

Scroll down to read how we covered today's proceedings.

Live Updates

Good morning and welcome to our live coverage from the Finsbury Park terror attack trial at Woolwich Crown Court.
 
This morning, the jury is due to hear the closing speech by the defence. The judge will then sum up the case and they will be sent out to consider their verdict.
 
Here is a summary of what the court heard yesterday:

Finsbury Park terror suspect's claim another man was driving van dismissed as 'absurd'

The alleged Finsbury Park attacker has claimed that another man was behind the wheel of a van that ploughed into a group of Muslims and that he then “vanished” like the famed illusionist Dynamo. Darren Osborne told Woolwich Crown Court that a man called Dave was driving. The father-of-four denied knowing that he was going to drive into pedestrians. “He’s like Dynamo, he’s an illusion, an illusionist, he can make himself vanish perhaps, I don’t know,” Mr Osborne told the jury.

The jury has filed in ready for proceedings to begin

The defence barrister, Lisa Wilding QC, is addressing the jury and urges them to use their "fairness and common sense".
"Your decision must not be influenced by emotion, but must be a purely rational one because you decide this case in your heads, and not your hearts," she says.

Ms Wilding says the "serious and troubling" case must be decided solely on the evidence and with "no pressure, no fear, no sense of what should be done to please and appease others."

Ms Wilding: "You are to decide whether the case has been proved on the evidence, you must not decide this case because you feel that the tragic and unnecessary death of Makram Ali should be marked - you must only decide this case on the evidence you hae seen and heard and read."

Ms Wilding says the jury must be convinced that Mr Osborne was driving the van and of what he intended - "not on speculation, not on guesswork, not on 'what if' but on the evidence."

Ms Wilding confirms Mr Osborne accepts his partner's account of him becoming "obsessed" with Muslims, does not deny calling them terrorists, admits hiring the van to attack the Al-Quds Day march and writing the note found inside it.
 
"It may be that you find those views repugnant, but you wil not try this case on those views."

Ms Wilding asks: "Why would a man so intent on killing, as he agrees he was, who appears to want to have his say and to proclaim his cause and views - why would he deny doing the thing he set out to do if in fact he had done it?"

Ms Wilding is closing her speech. She says: "There is no doubt that the death of Makram Ali andb  injury of others was unnecessary, unjust and tragic...has the prosecution made you sure or has the defendant raised a doubt?"

The defence's closing speech and the jury is beings sent out for a short break, after which the judge will sum up the case.

The jury is back in court and the judge, Justice Cheema-Grubb, is now addressing the jury.
 
 
The judge tells the jury that the law "tolerates strongly held and varied views".
 
She adds: "In the UK tolerance and freedom of thought and expression are prised...every ordinary and decent person hates child abuse and acts of terror, whatever the colour or creed of the perpetrator.
 
"That sort of feeling is very different to people who hate a whole religion, the former sort of horror is rational and the second is not."
The judge said people are entitled to whatever views they wish to hold but "it is when those views cross over into illegal conduct that our criminal law gets involved".
 
She tells the jury: "You must put aside any emotional response you had to the evidence and be objective."
But the judge says Mr Osborne's views are "not irrelevant" because it shows his intent in hiring a van and driving it to London.
 
She says the "central issue" is who was driving the van during the attack - Mr Osborne or, as he claims, a man called Dave

The judge says that for the alleged offences there is no defence of being "in the grip of moral outrage", being led astray or "being an inadequate loner who was rapidly radicalised by far-right material on the internet."

The judge has explained why Mr Osborne is not charged with a terrorism offence, because "murder is murder" and specific laws are not needed.
 
She says: "It is unnecessary for the prosecution to bring specific terror charges in this case because murder is murder, whether done for terror motives or some other motive."
 
She says terrorists commonly aim to kill the population or section of it to terrorise them, advance a cause, publicise their views or put pressure on society.
 
The judge notes that Mr Osborne declared his aims to kill Muslims and politicians.

Justice Cheema-Grubb "There is no defence to the murder of a Muslim on the basis that some Muslims have abused children or carried out terror attacks."

The judge says the jury may conclude that the defendant's failure to mention Dave and Terry Jones in police interviews and not to bring them up until Friday could help the prosecution's case.
 
She says the defence case is that he did not tell police about his two alleged co-conspirators because he feared repercussions.
The judge said Mr Osborne initially indicated that he would not be inserting a defene and was "simply putting the prosecution to the proof".
 
Two defence statements have been inserted since Friday. The first claimed Dave was driving the van but that he "supported" him, while the second contradicted it and said he had withdrawn from the plan and did not know what would happen in Finsbury Park

There is a defence for failing to disclose something a defendant relies on in court, including that they had not reasonably thought of it, because of their age or other factors

Please allow a moment for the live blog to load

Prosecutors had accused Mr Osborne of conjuring his unexpected defence “out of thin air” and urged jurors to dismiss the “frankly absurd” account on Wednesday.

The father-of-four took to the stand for a second day to tell Woolwich Crown Court the deadly attack was carried out by a man called Dave, who was not seen by witnesses or recorded on CCTV.

Read more

“He’s like Dynamo, he’s an illusion, an illusionist, he can make himself vanish perhaps, I don't know,” Mr Osborne told the jury.

The 48-year-old claims he, Dave and another man called Terry Jones planned to attack a pro-Palestinian march in London, hoping Jeremy Corbyn would attend, but were thwarted by road closures.

Mr Osborne told the court that he “wasn’t interested” in finding a new target after driving from Cardiff on 18 June and did not plan to kill Muslims in Finsbury Park, instead believing they were going to a pub.

He claimed that Dave jumped into the van in the four seconds it was not filmed on CCTV and ploughed it into a group of Muslim worshippers helping a collapsed man.

Finsbury Park attack

Finsbury Park attack

  • 1/14

    Police officers attend to the scene after a vehicle collided with pedestrians in the Finsbury Park, killing one person and injuring eight

    Reuters

  • 2/14

    The incident is being treated as a potential terror attack

    Reuters

  • 3/14

    A man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder

    Reuters

  • 4/14

    Police cordon off a street in Finsbury Park

    AFP/Getty Images

  • 5/14

    A man prays in the street after the attack

    Reuters

  • 6/14

    Men gather and pray together in the street in the aftermath of the attack

    AFP/Getty

  • 7/14

    Reuters

  • 8/14

    PA

  • 9/14

    Onlookers gather near a police cordon

    EPA

  • 10/14

    Forensic investigators arrive at the scene

    PA

  • 11/14

    A forensic tent stands next to a van

    PA

  • 12/14

    A police officer talks with residents

    AFP/Getty Images

  • 13/14

    Onlookers watch proceedings at the security cordon

    AFP/Getty

  • 14/14

    Local residents react at the scene

    AFP/Getty Images

Asking how Dave allegedly took over while the van was moving at speed, Mr Osborne said he put it in neutral and “shimmied over real quick”.

He had “no answer” to a series of questions on why he supposedly decided to change his trousers in the footwell and did not pull over, adding: “We're a peculiar bunch of guys.”

Prosecutor Jonathan Rees QC said the defendant’s account was a “desperate attempt” to evade responsibility.

Closing the prosecution’s case, Mr Rees said the involvement of Dave and Terry was a “fabrication” the defendant cobbled together after hearing days of evidence against him.

Body-worn camera footage shows Mr Osborne telling police he was the van’s driver, initially claiming he lost control before later launching into a rant about Muslims, saying: “At least I had a proper go.”

A police officer who interviewed the suspect in hospital recorded him saying he was “flying solo” and that no-one else was involved in the attack.