A 16-year-old defendant accused of murdering Mason Miller was acting in self-defence and had been targeted by a group of armed individuals, his barrister has told a jury.

Mr Aina, representing the teenager at Northampton Crown Court, delivered his closing speech on Tuesday, November 10, urging jurors to look carefully at the evidence and remember that his client was just 15 at the time of an earlier machete incident and 16 when Mason was killed.

Mason, 20, died after being stabbed during an alleged machete fight at Briar Hill Skate Park, Northampton, on February 18, 2026.

The trial concerns a machete fight involving Mason, the 16-year-old defendant, a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old. The prosecution alleges the four were involved in a two-against-two machete fight, with both sides sharing a common purpose and prepared to inflict really serious harm.

placeholder image — Northampton Crown Court

The 17-year-old admits delivering the fatal wound but denies murder, claiming he acted in self-defence. His barrister is due to address the jury on Wednesday November 11.

The 16-year-old also denies murder and says he did not stab anyone. The 18-year-old denies involvement in Mason's killing and says he was himself a victim of the violence.

All three defendants deny murder and manslaughter.

The jury has also heard evidence about an earlier machete incident on April 6, 2025, at the junction of Weedon Road and Spencer Bridge Road in Northampton.

The prosecution alleges the 16-year-old struck the then 17-year-old, now 18, on the head with a machete, causing a fractured skull, brain damage and a serious neck wound which resulted in what a paramedic described as verging on catastrophic blood loss.

The 16-year-old denies wounding the 18-year-old with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

During his closing speech, Mr Aina challenged the prosecution's evidence in relation to both incidents, arguing that his client had been wrongly accused and had acted to protect himself in February.

‘You’re being asked to judge the actions of a child’

Mr Aina began by asking the jury to remember the age of his client when considering the allegations.

He said: “April 2025, the 16-year-year-old was 15. In February he had just become 16.

“The 16-year-old cannot sit on the jury like you can. In fact, no one of the 16-year-old's age can sit on a jury, and the reason is simple. It’s because at the age of 15 or 16 years a person is still considered to be a child.

“That’s why we refer to the 16-year-old by his first name, it’s to remind us all that you’re being asked to judge the actions of a child.

“When you retire into your room to consider your verdicts there will not be a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old in your jury room to remind you of what it means to be 15 or 16 years old.

“So you’re going to have to go back in your own life and think about how you were when you were 15 or 16 years old and you’re going to have to consider collectively your knowledge of how 15 and 16-year-olds behave.

“The point I’m trying to make is that great care is required when you think back to how you would behave when you were 15 or 16 years old. And because this is a criminal trial, even greater care is required in your judgement.”

April 2025: ‘We don’t have the evidence to say he was the knife man’

Turning to the April 6, 2025 incident, Mr Aina questioned whether the prosecution had proved that his client was the person who struck the 18-year-old with a machete.

Jurors had previously watched CCTV footage showing five individuals at the scene, including four masked boys who arrived on electric bikes, with two involved in a machete fight against the 18-year-old, and the other two watching on.

The prosecution alleges the 16-year-old was one of those riders and struck the 18-year-old with a machete, causing him to fall and drop his weapon.

Mr Aina said: “No direct evidence the 16-year-old was the person wielding a machete on the incident on April 6, 2025. There was another boy involved who is also left-handed.

“There is no sure conclusion. But you couldn’t bet your house on it because there are other explanations.

“He was at the scene on April 6, but the prosecution has to prove he’s the stabber.

“Two boys stayed back, the incident is very quick.

“Being left-handed doesn’t put a knife into the 16-year-old’s hand because there are two other left-handed boys.

“What’s the evidence that says the 16-year-old isn’t one of the lookouts?”

The barrister also questioned the prosecution's reliance on the defendant's mobile phone.

“The prosecution claims the 16-year-old dropped his phone at the scene. How does dropping his phone put the knife in the 16-year-old’s hand?”

He continued: “Whatever our suspicions may be, we don’t have the evidence to say he was the knife man.

“Furthermore, you’re not going to be prejudiced and use this for February 2026 because that’s not fair. That’s how I’d ask you to approach 2025.”

February 2026: ‘They were out to get the 16-year-old’

Mr Aina then turned to the fatal incident at Briar Hill Skate Park.

Referring to the account of the eyewitness evidence, he said: “The only stabbing the eyewitness saw was the stabbing of the 18-year-old.

“He never saw the stabbing of Mason Miller at all.”

He then set out the defence's account of what happened that afternoon.

“In truth, the incident on February 18 is a very simple one.

“Mason Miller, the 18-year-old and four other boys were out to get the 16-year-old on February 18. The six of them all had machetes.

“They had six machetes because they were out looking for 16-year-old. They were out to stab him. They were out to cause him at least really serious harm.”

Messages about knives and finding the teenager

Mr Aina took the jury through messages exchanged in the days before Mason's death, which he said showed a group discussing how to find and attack the teenager.

He referred to evidence that Mason had been trying to obtain machetes, including a message in which he said: “I want them in abundance.”

He also highlighted messages from February 16, including an exchange about finding the teenager in Briar Hill.

One message read: “Man at Briar Hill every day fam, I’m going to shot him fam.”

He then referred to messages exchanged on February 17 between the 18-year-old and another individual.

One message stated: “End of the day bro… if you don’t ching him he might ching you bro, that’s how it is.”

Mr Aina said the messages demonstrated the intentions of the group.

“It’s not just they want to get him, they want to get him and get away with it.

“The picture I’m trying to produce about their intention, the 18-year-old’s intention, that group Mason Miller is involved in wanted to do him really serious harm.”

The barrister continued by taking jurors through messages sent on February 18, the day of Mason’s death.

He referred to a message about the teenager being at the skate park, saying: “If you sit at skate park you’ll see the 16-year-old, that’s where he hits.”

He then turned to a message sent at 2.06pm by the 18-year-old.

It read: “I’m gunna **** him if he has that shank.”

He also referred to the message: “You know how heavy it is, 27 inches. Ye mate and hard as **** to shank fight.”

He said: “It was not ever intended to be a fair fight. It was intended to be a fight where the 16-year-old was on his own and he’s outnumbered with people who have got knives.”

Mr Aina also referred to the Slavery and Trafficking Risk Order imposed on Mason Miller in July 2025, telling the jury that he “shouldn’t be anywhere near anyone under 18”.

He said the order meant Mason should not have been having contact or communicating with anyone under the age of 18, but argued that he had continued messaging the boys and trying to recruit them.

Mr Aina said Mason was “gathering young people and arming them”.

‘The 16-year-old does not stab anybody that afternoon’

Mr Aina argued that his client had not gone to the skate park looking for violence.

He told the jury: “We know from the eyewitness that on February 18 the 16-year-old’s only concern that day was to sell drugs to the eyewitness.

“The 16-year-old wanted to go to his home. The inference from that from the eyewitness's evidence is that the 16-year-old didn’t want to sell drugs outside. He wanted to go to the eyewitness's home and the eyewitness didn’t want him.

“So that’s how it was, that’s how the 16-year-old came to be outside the skate park.

“You may have strong views about drugs, but that’s not why we’re here.”

He then set out his argument that his client did not stab anyone during the confrontation.

“In fact, the 16-year-old does not stab anybody that afternoon.

“There is no time for that. The only time he has got is to stop Mason Miller from stabbing him.

“In those few seconds, what’s going in the 16-year-old’s mind? ‘I don’t want to be stabbed’.

“He’s not responsible for the death of Mason Miller. He didn’t want to have this fight. Who wanted to have the fight? From the messages [referred to above].

“What we suggest is he was doing his best to protect himself and when he did that it was proportionate, he didn’t stab anybody.

“We know he ran away from the fight before the 17-year-old. He left as soon as he could.”

The barrister also questioned why his client would have left the scene if he had intended to kill or seriously harm Mason.

He said: “The incident happens in a flash and is over in a flash. How much thinking time does a child have there?

“If his intention was to stab Mason Miller, why didn’t he stab him when Mason Miller was on the ground? He didn’t. He ran away.

“There is no intention to cause harm. There is no evidence of encouragement. There wasn’t time for it. It was too fast. It happened too quickly.”

Towards the end of his speech, Mr Aina addressed the fact that the 16-year-old had not given evidence from the witness box.

He told jurors: “The fact someone doesn’t go into the witness box to give evidence doesn’t always mean they have something to hide.

“Where these children are from in Northampton, you need to understand the sorts of pressures and difficulties that may be present in a trial of this nature.”

The 16-year-old, 17-year-old and 18-year-old defendants all deny murdering Mason Miller. All three have also pleaded not guilty to manslaughter.

The trial continues.