Shemsi Kercova

My Response to the Press Coverage

Summary: Established facts and the issues addressed

On 25 January 2019, I was involved in a few seconds of chaos in a crowded London pub. While celebrating a goal with friends, I spilled some wine from a wine glass I was holding. The next thing I knew, the person seated in the chair in front of me stood up into my space and threw a full pint of beer into my face from close range. Instinctively, I turned my head away and put my arms out. In that split second, I had no time to think about the fact I was still holding my wine glass.

The wine glass broke in that reflexive movement. This caused serious injury to my left hand and, far more significantly, the serious injuries to the complainant. A matter of inches in how we both moved could have reversed who was injured, given witness accounts of how close his pint glass came to me.

The CCTV and other evidence from that evening that were not "lost" were limited (distant, black and white, and dark) but supported that this was a rapid, split-second incident. I have always accepted that I was holding a wine glass and that I was involved in a deeply regrettable incident.

Nothing in this statement is intended to minimise the seriousness of the complainant's injuries. I remain deeply sympathetic to what he has endured. In saying this, two things can be true at the same time: the complainant suffered devastating injuries, and the sequence of events, the evidence tested at trial, and the implications of the verdict do not match what has been maintained publicly.

1. The Verdict: What the Jury Found

I was charged and tried on two alternative counts:

  • Section 18: unlawfully wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

  • Section 20: unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, where the prosecution must prove that the defendant at least intended or was reckless as to causing some harm, but not that he intended to cause really serious harm.

Following a seven-day trial at the Inner London Crown Court:

  • The jury acquitted me on the Section 18 intent charge.

  • I was convicted of Section 20 - without intent.

The issues this statement addresses

I had hoped the verdict, specifically the acquittal on the Section 18 intent charge, would clearly signal that the jury did not find that I intended to cause really serious harm, and that this crucial distinction would be reflected in media coverage. In subsequent articles and public accounts, that distinction has been omitted or relegated to small print.

The public narrative repeatedly implies intent, or outright asserts it, despite my acquittal on the intent count.

No press attended the trial itself, reporting has been dominated by a City of London Police press release that presented an account clearly inconsistent with the tested evidence. This statement sets out these facts as they emerged in court.

The complainant gave evidence first and was then invited to remain for the duration of the seven-day trial to hear all evidence from both sides. While I can appreciate there were likely personal reasons for his choice, he elected not to stay. As a result, he never heard the complete defence evidence, the cross-examination of the lead detective, or the exposure of contradictions in the witness accounts.

2. What Actually Happened on 25 January 2019

The Evening

That evening was a reunion with three university friends, celebrating milestones and introducing them to my fiancée. I was early in my career at Accenture, leading a technical delivery programme on a financial services account with a team of sixteen. This was not a heavy-drinking night. I intended to leave after the football match and had work over the weekend.

The Vaping Discussion Early in the Evening

A group sat between our table and the screen in a crowded corner. Someone next to the complainant began vaping heavily, affecting the view. I asked, calmly, if he could vape outside instead. The group responded with jeering. I laughed it off and returned to my friends. The person stopped.

The complainant, seated directly in front of me, was the only person who appeared to take my request as an insult. He began vaping and turned to blow smoke towards our table. We found it childish rather than threatening. His friend ushered him back towards the game and it stopped.

I never spoke to the complainant that night.

The Split-Second Incident

About half an hour later, Manchester United scored. We jumped up to celebrate. While standing to celebrate the goal with friends, I was holding a glass of wine in my left hand. As I raised my arms, some wine spilled over my shirt. I did not deliberately throw a drink.

The next thing I knew, the complainant, seated in the chair in front of me, picked up the glass of beer on his table, stood up, came round his chair and moved within inches of my face. He coiled his right arm back and threw a full pint of beer into my face and eyes at very close range.

Instinctively, I turned my head away and put my arms out. In that split second, I had no time to think about the fact I was still holding my glass of wine in my left hand.

The wine glass broke in that reflexive movement. This caused serious injury to my left hand and, tragically, significant injuries to the complainant. A matter of inches in how we both moved could have reversed who was injured, given witness accounts of how close his pint glass came to me.

The CCTV and other material available to the court was limited (distant, black-and-white, and dark) but was consistent with this being a rapid, split-second incident.

At that point, neither of us appeared to understand that serious injury had been caused. He remained standing and continued trying to hit me. In those fractions of a second, I turned away and put my hands up. There was no time for calculation.

I did not pick anything up. I did not approach anyone, let alone instigate an aggressive confrontation whilst holding a glass. I was not given time to put the glass of wine down. That choice was effectively removed by someone else's immediate actions, with tragic consequences.

The Aftermath

Once his group separated him from me, I realised my left hand was severely injured. The webbing between my thumb and index finger was seriously deformed. My thumb was partially separated. There were visible gaps of missing tissue.

My friends reacted with urgency. One took off his scarf to stem the bleeding. A member of the bar staff brought tissues as I entered a taxi. Nobody told me I needed to stay. Nobody mentioned that another person had been badly hurt. We headed for a nearby hospital. The complainant and I ultimately ended up at the same London hospital.

Leaving the pub for urgent medical treatment created a narrative vacuum. When people only see the aftermath of a fast incident, assumptions and rumours spread to fill the gaps.

3. The Investigation: Gaps and Concerns Explored at Trial

In the days after the incident, I was in and out of hospital for my hand. I assumed I had borne the brunt of the contact and was not aware of any serious harm to the other person.

On 30 January 2019, police arrested me for grievous bodily harm. I had never been arrested before.

I had a false sense of security that the police would investigate properly: speak to both sides, gather all available CCTV, and conclude that this was a freak incident in which I was not the aggressor.

Custody and Interview

On arriving at the station, before I had spoken, an officer asked me in a slow, patronising tone: "Speak… any… English?… Need… translator?… Little bit?" I had never experienced anything like that before.

I was assigned a duty solicitor who advised that the police had been reluctant to provide evidence, that pressure tactics were common, and that it was not in my interests to answer questions. I was uncomfortable doing so and in response the on-duty solicitor hastily put together a brief prepared statement.

After the interview, I was released under investigation with no restrictions. The police knew the complainant and I both worked for Accenture at the same location, yet no conditions were put in place to reduce the chance of accidental workplace contact.

4. The Personal Fallout While Awaiting Trial

When I learned that the complainant worked for the same company, I sought informal advice from senior leadership. I was advised that, since the incident did not occur on company time or at a company event, I was not required to disclose it to HR. We were based at different client sites, making the likelihood of contact extremely low.

As the case was ongoing, I was constrained from discussing it publicly or informally. Doing so risked allegations of witness tampering, prejudicing proceedings, or otherwise damaging my defence.

Once the complainant learned my identity through disclosure, he went to HR and presented his account as fact, stating he did not feel safe in the workplace. I could not legally challenge his position while criminal proceedings were active and I was still awaiting full evidence from the police.

Despite maintaining support from senior leadership, I concluded it was best to offer my immediate resignation given his stated concerns about his feelings on workplace safety.

Unbeknownst to me at the time, the complainant had also identified a mutual connection on LinkedIn, a distant friend from my university year who worked at the same company and presented his version of events. This account then spread through my professional and social network. Recipients assumed it must be true given the police involvement, the seriousness of the charges, and compounded by my silence.

I did not correct misinformation during this period. Beyond the legal constraints, I was concerned that any statements I made could be relayed back to the complainant or his contacts, potentially leading to allegations of witness interference or intimidation. I genuinely believed that, regardless of the clearly flawed initial police narrative, the full CCTV footage and complete witness accounts would speak for themselves once properly examined.

The option to pursue charges against the complainant was presented to me on multiple occasions. I chose not to, out of sympathy for his injuries and a reluctance to apply pressure that might threaten his employment or visa status. Whatever dismay I felt about the process, and however strongly I rejected his account, I did not want to compound his difficulties out of genuine sympathy for what he was enduring.

5. The Trial: Evidence, Questions, and Concessions

Despite motions for further adjournments, citing disclosure and investigative failures two and a half years on, I insisted on listing the case to put forth evidence on the events.

Issues Explored in the "Lost" Evidence

During the trial, the cross-examination of DC James Andrews of City of London Police explored what I consider to have been a narrow and incomplete investigation.

The detective confirmed under cross-examination that:

  • CCTV from the evening, beyond the few minutes presented, which could have provided context regarding demeanour or any initially alleged aggression, was not pursued and therefore was "lost". He justified this by stating that since I had "placed myself at the scene", he "did not think it was necessary in this case."

  • The three witnesses seated next to me had the best view of the incident. The detective admitted: "I made no enquiries… we did not get their details." When questioned about the witnesses listed in my defence statement, he said: "I totally forgot to do it. I did not do it."

  • When asked if he had considered that I might have gone to hospital because of heavy bleeding, rather than to flee out of guilt as alleged, he replied: "Did not cross my mind."

For two and a half years, I had pleaded innocence and enquired about the necessary evidence, only to witness the officer in charge testify that he either felt it wasn't necessary to gather the CCTV, four key defence witness statements and other critical evidence or was simply too busy to pursue even the most basic lines of enquiry on a case that carries the prospect of a prison sentence spanning decades.

The Self-Defence Ruling

A central issue at trial was how my instinctive reaction would be legally characterised. I tried to be completely honest throughout:

  • Everything happened so fast that my response was effectively subconscious; any attempt to label my exact intention after the fact would be speculative.

  • I was not angry or seeking revenge.

  • I had forgotten about the glass in my hand.

  • My reaction occurred within a split second - it felt instinctive, not calculated.

It was impossible to say with certainty whether I was acting out of a fight-or-flight response, attempting to ward off a perceived threat, attempting to throw a drink back, or something else entirely. Analysing a fraction of a second in slow motion afterwards felt artificial. It is comparable to being asked what you were consciously thinking at the exact moment someone unexpectedly startles you. You cannot know.

Because I did not clearly and consistently present my actions as "self-defence" using formal legal terminology, the judge ruled that self-defence would not be left to the jury as an option. The jury was instead asked to choose between:

  • a deliberate act that was at least reckless about causing harm; or

  • a pure accident where no level of harm whatsoever, even minor, could be foreseen.

It was striking to me that a process of such seriousness could turn on whether certain formal labels were used, leaving little room for nuance in describing a split-second reaction.

Jury Questions About the Complainant

Towards the end of the trial, the jury submitted specific questions indicating potential scepticism about the complainant's portrayal as a purely passive victim:

Q1. "Is there any legal reason why the complainant has not been asked if he was ever in a fight or what he is like when he has been drinking?"

Q2. "Why haven't we heard about the complainant's background in as much detail as the accused…?"

The judge directed the jury that only I was on trial and therefore my background and character were relevant evidence. The complainant was not on trial. The jury was told not to speculate about those questions.

The point here is not to invite speculation. It is to show that, even within the limits of what could be put before them, the jury were actively interrogating the "passive victim" framing that later dominated reporting.

The Prosecution Case Shift

Many prosecution witnesses had only partial views and were filling gaps with assumptions:

  • Some assumed the spilled drink was deliberate; at least one described it as an accident and thought nothing of it.

  • Some were certain they saw me throw a punch with my right hand, even though the evidence was consistent with the glass being in my left.

  • Some did not actually see the glass break.

  • One witness accepted under cross-examination that what he thought he had seen did not match the CCTV.

The closing submissions captured the problem: people see incidents the way they want to see them. The complainant gave an account in which my table was aggressive all evening and inflated details such as the number of people at our table and the distance "charged" across the pub. The defence position was that the complainant's account did not align with anyone else's.

The prosecution case conceded and evolved materially during the trial. The original case depended on the complainant's account that I was aggressive, came across the room, and hit him when his back was turned.

Once the evidence was presented, the case moved away from the narrative of an aggressive crowd that had caused trouble throughout the evening. The events illustrated how quickly people can reconstruct chaotic moments after the fact in ways that do not match the physical reality of a split-second incident.

Sentencing

On 15 October 2021, approximately two and a half years after the incident, I was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, with half to be served in custody. The judge indicated this was the minimum he felt able to impose given the precedent set by other cases and the level of injury sustained, while also recognising that this was not a premeditated attack. I served the custodial portion with no issues and was released on licence, where I completed the full sentence and probation requirements.

Before this split-second incident and since, I have never been known to or in trouble with the police, law enforcement, or any employer.

6. The Press Release: Fact-Checking the Public Narrative

Press Attendance

No press attended the trial itself. One Daily Mail journalist attended the sentencing hearing only.

The City of London Police Statement

After the trial, a City of London Police press release was published with quotes attributed to the lead detective. He had been present throughout the entire trial, yet the press release omitted the fact that the jury acquitted me on the Section 18 intent charge. It included assertions attributed to the complainant that, in my view, were inconsistent with the evidence as tested at trial.

The most perplexing part about this press release is that the lead detective quoted, DC Andrews, sat through the complete seven-day trial with his laptop on a blank word document throughout. This was the same person in charge of evidence gathering and disclosure.

Multiple outlets picked up that release directly and reproduced or paraphrased its narrative. This remains what is most visible and easily shared online.

Examples of Factually Misleading Statements

That release:

  • described the incident as a "vicious and senseless attack";

  • framed it as arising from a "disagreement over a football match"; and

  • stated that I "walked over and punched him".

It also only stated that I had been "found guilty to grievous bodily harm (GBH)" [sic], without any explanation that there are two distinct GBH offences (Section 18 with intent and Section 20 without intent), and that I had been acquitted of the more serious Section 18 charge.

Mainstream and regional media outlets then reproduced or paraphrased that release, often with headlines including terms such as "thug".

In doing so, they amplified a narrative that:

  • assumes intent, despite the jury's acquittal on that point;

  • omits mention of the pint of beer thrown into my face at close range;

  • does not explain the investigation and evidential issues explored in court;

  • makes no mention that I was found to be of good character and that this was an isolated, split-second incident;

  • omits that the complainant moved forward aggressively into my space as he threw a full pint of beer;

  • omits that wider CCTV was not obtained and later became unavailable;

  • omits that defence witnesses were not interviewed by police at the time; and

  • omits that I did not flee the scene but sought urgent medical attention for my own serious injuries.

I cannot change what has already been written. What I can do is set out my own account and clarify how it relates to the actual verdict and established facts in evidence.

7. Reflections

When someone is badly hurt, there is a strong instinct to identify a villain, to make someone pay, and to impose narrative on chaos. A tragic outcome makes people search for a proportional intention. That is human.

The UK legal process creates significant pressure to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity in exchange for a reduced sentence, typically 40 per cent. This is also the same time you are presented with the most limited amount of evidence. Over the first few years, legal advisers reviewing what was presented as balanced and complete evidence responded with variations of: "The evidence looks overwhelming," "How could this be an accident?" and "There is no conspiracy; if more evidence existed, they would have produced it or listed it as unused."

Each time, I resisted, knowing these accounts did not capture what happened that evening.

Even after the jury found that intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the public narrative repeatedly treated intent as self-evident because the injury was severe. I was acquitted of intent to cause really serious harm. Conflating the tragic outcome with a straightforward "aggressor versus victim" narrative does not reflect what actually happened.

Before this experience, I assumed "innocent until proven guilty" was a meaningful protection. Under established police guidance, the lead detective had a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry, whether they supported or undermined the case against me. The supposedly "complete" schedule of used and unused evidence did not even list my mobile phone, despite the fact that I had provided the PIN code.

I did not understand how evidence could be misconstrued, how bias could twist an investigation, or how much power a single press statement could have in shaping public perception.

Material that might have supported my account was not secured. Witnesses who could have corroborated my version were not interviewed. The assumption of flight was not tested against the reality of hospital attendance.

Serious injuries create intense institutional pressure for a narrative that feels proportionate to the harm. That pressure does not prove wrongdoing by any individual, but it can shape how people interpret chaotic events.

8. Philosophy

Throughout this process, I relied heavily on Stoic philosophy to cope with the emotional strain of facing scepticism and doubt, particularly given the one-sided nature of the evidence that had been gathered.

The central idea is this: as long as you continue to do the right thing, external reputation and outcomes are not the ultimate measure of your character. What matters is how you conduct yourself, even when others cannot or will not see the full picture.

In practice, that mindset also held me back. I could have adopted a more aggressively framed self-defence narrative from the outset and treated each decision as a tactical exercise. Instead, I tried to be straightforward about the fact that you cannot neatly label a split-second reaction after the event without retrospectively imposing meaning onto it.

Looking back, that approach was probably naive. But it was the right thing to do. Without that philosophical grounding and the resolve it provided, I am not certain where I would be today.

This statement is published to provide a factual account of events and to correct the public record. For the full context of the trial and verdict, this page is intended to serve as the authoritative source on my position.

Shemsi Kercova: My Response to the Press Coverage · Shemsi Kercova