Man who filmed Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden

[HelenaDove]

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/property-millionaire-who-filmed-burning-grenfell-tower-effigy-cleared-after-key-evidence-hidden-a4219566.html#Echobox=1566492215

News
Comment
Football
Insider
GO London
Lifestyle
Showbiz
Homes & Property
ES Magazine
Future London

News › Crime
Property millionaire who filmed burning Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden

Tristan Kirk
1 hour ago

Click to follow
The Evening Standard
Paul Bussetti at an earlier hearing
Popular Videos
Man who filmed Grenfell Tower effigy cleared after key evidence hidden
Bournemouth vs Man City preview: Premier League prediction, team news
Watford vs West Ham preview: Premier League prediction and team news
Man arrested on suspicion of Libby Squire murder released by police

A property millionaire who filmed a Grenfell Tower effigy being burned on a bonfire has been cleared by a judge after key evidence was hidden from defence lawyers in a string of “appalling” failures.

Paul Bussetti, 47, was accused of causing public outrage when a video of the bonfire was posted on YouTube in November last year, showing the cardboard model of the doomed tower going up in flames at a private party.

Prosecutors argued the video was grossly offensive and fuelled by racist humour, insisting black and Muslim occupants of the tower were depicted in figures on the side of the model.

However, Mr Bussetti told Westminster magistrates court today the incident and video was intended as a “joke” and had been misunderstood by members of the public, as the figures on the side were actually mocking versions of his group of friends.

[Paul-Bussetti.jpg]
Paul Bussetti (PA)

As the judge was preparing to give her verdict in the case, following two days of evidence and at the end of a nine-month criminal investigation, it dramatically emerged that two key police interviews that supported the defence case had never been disclosed to Mr Bussetti’s legal team.

The maker of the effigy, Steve Bull, and another partygoer, Peter Hancock, had both told Met officers just days after the controversial bonfire that the figures on the model were intended to depict their group of friends, rather than actual victims of the Grenfell tragedy.

Mr Hancock also revealed to police that he had filmed the bonfire himself and send the clip to friends on WhatsApp, but had faced no criminal prosecution and was not called to give any evidence.

Defence barrister Mark Summers QC said in light of the revelations, it was “not even clear that the video on YouTube and in the national media was Mr Bussetti’s video”.

During cross-examination, it was suggested that Mr Bussetti and the host of the party, Clifford Smith, had “created” the claim that the figures on the effigy were their friends.

Mr Summers told the court it was “utterly outrageous that anyone knowing this sat through the cross-examination you heard today and let it continue”, bemoaning the fact two police interviews supporting Mr Bussetti’s case had not emerged until the trial was almost over.

Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said she was “appalled” by the state of the disclosure in the case, and demanded an explanation for the failings from Scotland Yard and the CPS.

Clearing Mr Bussetti of the charge of sending an offensive communication, she said the bonfire was in “colossal bad taste” but said the prosecution had failed to prove the case against him.

“I can’t be sure the video relied on by the Crown is the one taken by the defendant”, she said. “I can’t be sure the cut-out images are not the defendant and his friends.

he said the case could have been thrown out as an abuse of process due to the disclosure failures, adding: “Once someone is charged with an offence, there is a tendency to take the foot off the pedal and not to review cases much afterwards.”

Judge Arbuthnot said it was only the vigilance of prosecutor Philip Stott that had averted a “potential miscarriage of justice”, as she demanded an full explanation of what had gone wrong.

Mr Bussetti, a father-of-two who owns a lucrative property portfolio, filmed the Grenfell effigy going up in flames at the event on November 3 last year, and sent the clip to two WhatsApp groups containing a total of 20 people.

He insisted the figures on the model were of his friends, and he sent the video to people who “understood the joke”.

“The majority of the people in that (WhatsApp) group were at the party, they all found it funny, we all found it funny”, he said. “It was pictures of us on the box.

He said it was “certainly not” genuine Grenfell victims on the effigy, and argued public outrage at the video was based on a misunderstanding of the “joke”.

Mr Bussetti said one figure with red hair was a friend whose nickname is “Ginge”, another figure with thick eyebrows was his friend whose nickname is “eyebrows”, and a third was the host of the party, Clifford Smith, who is known as “The Ghost”.

“He tries his hardest to get a sun tan and he just comes back white”, said Bussetti, denying the claim that the figure is a baby.

Prosecutors claimed one of the figures was a Muslim woman in a niqab, and one attendee of the party in November last year is heard on the video saying: “Look, little ninjas getting it at the moment”.

But Mr Bussetti today insisted the figure was actually Mr Smith’s son: “When he was younger he used to do martial arts and called himself ‘ninja’, and we called him a ninja.”

He added that he himself was on the model, depicted with big ears as he had the nickname ‘Pluggy’, and Mr Bull had also included himself with a large nose.

During the trial, a string of racist messages Mr Bussetti had received and shared on WhatsApp were shown, including offensive jokes about Muslims, black people, and involving the KKK.

Asked directly if he is a racist, Mr Bussetti twice replied: “No”.

Mr Summers told the court: “It’s a group of frankly juvenile men – name calling, group skinny dipping, sharing pornography, name calling and when that doesn’t do it anymore, simple foul language.”

But he insisted the public had misunderstood the effigy “joke

But he insisted the public had misunderstood the effigy “joke” which Mr Bussetti had never intended to become public.

Judge Arbuthnot said the racist and abusive messages “showed the sort of person he is” but were not enough to “fil the holes” in the prosecution case.

When Mr Bussetti first handed himself in to police in November, during intense publicity around the video, he admitted the clip was “horrible” and added: “It’s just sick, there was no purpose.”

He did not mention that his friends were depicted on the model, but told the court today he was

Bussetti, from South Norwood, denied and was acquitted of sending an offensive communication, under the 2003 Communications Act.

Suspect the police knew exactly what they were doing. I wonder what a look at their bank accounts around the time of the case would show

I lost a family member in the grenfell fire and in reply to the pp saying what’s the difference burning the tower in a bonfire and Big Ben is the fact the burning of Big Ben hasn’t happened. The way my relation died will haunt me for the rest of my life

Krouse im so sorry

I wonder if it was a case of back handers.

I'm sure you're right @Awwlookatmybabyspider, backhanders and funny handshakes all the way. Disgusting, vile creatures all.

Funny how Busetti and his friends wernt held to the same standard that Jade Goody was!

I'm a bit confused, some seem to be saying that the police messed up the case deliberately so he would get off, others that the police suppressed evidence to fit the guy up. Either is bad, but which?

And you know, if this had of been a bunch of supposed "chav" types off a council estate, or on Universal Credit, they'd have been convicted and the press would be up in arms.
But yet again, posh people can afford a good brief so get away with it.
It's racist and disgusting, and to hide evidence, well, that should be seen as a crime in itself. In fact I thought concealing evidence was a crime.

Yes, I’m confused now as well as to whether the police were trying to fit them up or get them off.

@Krouse64 so sorry for your loss.

I suspect it was just total ineptitude on behalf of police. I used to work at the bar. I've prosecuted and defended many criminal cases and missing evidence/incomplete disclosure was prevalent.

Probably occurred in 40% of cases I was involved in. Sometimes evidence would come to light early on, sometimes mid trial.

I've dealt with a rape case where it only became apparent that the victim had made three previous statements during her cross examination; a robbery case where the fact there was CCTV of the incident was referenced by the officer in charge whilst giving evidence and literally hundreds of incidences where peripheral witness statements or transcripts of 999 calls were not disclosed.

Sometimes the evidence supported the prosecution case and sometimes it undermined it. In virtually every case it came down to laziness or stupidity. A handful were deliberate attempts to pervert course of justice.

The article states that two statements that would have supported the defence case were not disclosed which implies the police were "fitting up" the defendants.

Unless it was a complex double bluff where they didn't disclose the statements at the time, allowed them to come to light this allowing the defence to claim abuse of process. This would be a risky and I'd suggest vanishingly unlikely.

Krause. I’m so sorry. xx

Its the insistence that the paper figures wernt supposed to be the Grenfell residents that has absolutely galled me.

Someone can clearly be heard saying "this is what happens when you dont pay your rent"

And saying that these figures represented his family and friends he could say that the ninja comment was referring to a nickname that one of them had What crap And @BiBiBirdie makes a good point. Would Jade Goody have been believed if she had said the poppadum comment wasnt referring to Shilpa Shetty.

The Grenfell residents have been majorly gaslighted here.

And im willing to bet money on the fact that the people saying Bussetti has his right to free speech were saying the opposite about Jade 12 years ago and since.

Oh the Jade incident was a classic case of pointing the finger and vilifying someone of lower class.
Until the documentary, I don't think many people remembered or even knew how utterly disgusting Shilpa's group, especially Ken Russell, were towards Jade and her mum. Ken said awful things about them being thick and all sorts, most of which was ignored by the press.
I've always 100% believed that the producers of BB knew what they were doing, they wanted a class divide for ratings and boy, did they get one.

well, it depends what you think of the police. Generally conservative, right wing, fond of money and against everything PC gorn mayd or left wing idealists?

I remember this case and being disgusted by it, I mean in what universe is it funny to laugh at the Grenfell Tower victims?
Couple that with the whole jokes about "ninjas" in there at the window then I don't know how they got off.
Dog whistling bullshit from what I've read in newspapers reports.
Sickening.

These poor poor people have no justice of any kind, and Then some prick makes a mockery of their suffering and terror and gets away with it. It breaks my heart and makes me so angry.

Sometimes the evidence supported the prosecution case and sometimes it undermined it. In virtually every case it came down to laziness or stupidity. A handful were deliberate attempts to pervert course of justice.

Which are indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Or even a trained eye.

I'm not the US legal systems greatest cheerleader, but one principle they have absolutely nailed is the "Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree" doctrine. Tainted evidence cannot be allowed before a court.

Meanwhile, in jolly old England illegally obtained evidence is not only admissible but, it seems - encouraged .....

All of this matters because if you don't have faith in the justice system, then no one will receive justice. And ideally it's justice we want. Not vengeance. That's the supposed point of laws, courts, juries and judges.

Now we could save a few million quid (but getting less by the year) if we scrapped all that nonsense. After all, we all know who's really guilty and who isn't. But I'm guessing within a few minutes of deciding we can all administer our own "justice", someone will be whinging because their relative was summarily executed for "looking like a paedo", or "looking like they were about to do something ...".