A lawyer told the Supreme Court that his client did not plot to murder Letrae Doeman but was guilty of being “a fool” and an accessory after the fact.

Nasaje Anderson, Aaron Perinchief, Jukai Burgess and QuaZori Brangman have denied murdering Mr Doeman, who was shot dead in Flatts in the early hours of July 1, 2022.

The Crown argued that Mr Anderson pulled the trigger, while Mr Brangman rode the motorcycle used in the deadly attack.

However, prosecutors argued that Mr Anderson and Mr Burgess played key roles in the murder plot both before and after the shooting.

As closing statements in the trial continued yesterday, Jerome Lynch KC, for Mr Perinchief, said that his client was guilty of being an accessory after the fact, but not murder.

“He is guilty,” Mr Lynch said. “Guilty of being a fool. He’s guilty of trusting some of those people in the dock that he shares and he is guilty of being an accessory after the fact.

“That, he has never denied. But he is not guilty of murder.”

Mr Lynch said that he was surprised to hear the Crown accuse his client of being the instigator of the plot and the supplier of the firearm in their closing address, arguing that the evidence did not support it.

He said that an organiser would need to communicate with those under him but there was no record that his client spoke with Mr Anderson or Mr Brangman before the shooting.

Mr Lynch accepted that some of the comments made in messages were “stupid bravado”, but there was no evidence to suggest he was involved in gang activity and the suggestion that he supplied a firearm was completely speculative.

He told the court that Mr Perinchief spoke to police about the events of that night and, while he did not get everything correct, he did provide an alibi and offered names, locations and times so it could be verified.

“What he was doing is what you would expect from someone who is innocent,” Mr Lynch said. “Tell the police what you know. He didn’t need to say anything.”

Mr Lynch argued the evidence suggested that Mr Perinchief had no knowledge that his house was to be used as a getaway location because he was not at home at the time and arrived in Well Bottom, Southampton, after Mr Anderson did.

He also suggested that a series of calls made by Mr Anderson after the shooting showed the plotters trying to find somewhere that he could go to lay low in the wake of the shooting.

Mr Lynch said: “Everything he did was after the fact, to which he has fully admitted. It’s not enough to provide a safe haven after the event if you didn’t know and play a part in it beforehand.”

He said Mr Anderson’s version of events was rubbish, highlighting his refusal to provide the password for his phone.

Mr Lynch said: “If what he was saying was true, why wouldn’t it help him? He doesn’t give it to you because he lied, because he knows that it won’t help him.”

Susan Mulligan, for Mr Brangman, meanwhile told the jury that there was not much in the way of evidence against her client and that there were gaps in the testimony that was presented.

While Ms Mulligan said the Crown had labelled Mr Brangman as the person who rode the bike used in the deadly attack, she said there was a sparsity of evidence to show where the killers went after the shooting and questions about the timeline of what footage was available.

She added that while prosecutors suggested that Mr Brangman was seen arriving home by car at 1.22am, there was no evidence as to where the car was before that.

Ms Mulligan said: “What do you know about the car? What do you know about its movements on the night of June 30 and the early hours of July 1?

“All the CCTV footage, all the licence-plate number readers, and what do you know? What is presented to you?

“You didn’t hear anything about the car near Flatts, near Island Construction, near where Mr Anderson says he got the bike.”

Ms Mulligan said that Mr Anderson testified that members of the bike community would lend each other clothing such as jackets and gloves, suggesting that it would be a reasonable explanation as to how Mr Brangman’s DNA could have gotten on to clothing found as part of the investigation.

While Ms Mulligan said Mr Anderson lied when he denied taking the bags of clothing from the bike used in the murder, she said that such a lie did not mean Mr Anderson was guilty, suggesting it would be understandable for him to want to distance himself from the bags now that he knew their contents.

“People lie about things for a lot of reasons and just because they lie about one thing doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater,” she said.

She added that Mr Anderson’s decision to grab the bag of clothing from the back of Mr Brangman’s car suggested that he had some knowledge of it.

Ms Mulligan asked: “How did he know what he was looking for if he wasn’t the one who put it in the car?”

Ms Mulligan also highlighted that there was no evidence that Mr Brangman was involved in gang activity, questioning what motivation he could have had to commit murder.

“He wasn’t associated,” she said. “He wasn’t involved in the gang life. He wasn’t putting in work. No one knew who he was.”

While Ms Mulligan accepted that there were records of communications between Mr Brangman and Mr Anderson, she said gaps in the record meant that it was easy to draw the wrong inferences.

“Don’t just accept a storyline,” she said. “Look at the evidence closely.”

Closing statements in the trial are expected to conclude today.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers