FAMILY’S HOPE THAT CASE WILL RETURN TO COURT:

YOUSEF Makki’s family cling to the hope that their son’s case will come back to court – one way or another – because they believe there are still unanswered questions.

The first potential route is an inquest. As is routine in all unnatural deaths, an inquest has been opened in the case of Yousef.

But full inquests rarely proceed in cases where there has already been a criminal court case.

It is expected that a decision will be made whether there will be a full inquest in Yousef’s case on October 18, in Stockport, by Senior Coroner Alison Mutch.

The Makki family will be represented at the hearing and will argue one should take place or at least a coronial investigation.

In years gone by it was very rare for inquests to be held in cases where the facts have already been heard in a criminal trial.

But in recent years the guidance given to coroners has changed, making such inquests more likely although still very rare. Such a hearing, were it to happen, could see Josh Molnar called to give evidence.

It is also understood the family is considering suing Molnar for damages.

If he decided to contest any civil claim, Molnar would, again, be compelled to give evidence.

During a criminal trial, the burden of proof is a high one: ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ But in a civil case and in an inquest, the burden is a lesser one: ‘more likely than not.’

This means that, in theory, the conclusion arrived at following an inquest or a civil case can be completely different to the conclusion of a jury in a criminal case, even though they involve the same set of circumstances.

There is another potential avenue for the Makki family although this, too, is very rare.

A change in the law in 2003 did away with the old ‘double jeopardy’ rule where a defendant who had been acquitted in a criminal trial could be tried again.

But there must be ‘new and compelling evidence’ before a retrial can happen.

The new evidence can be forensic material or witness testimony, perhaps uncovered during an inquest or a civil case, which would have to be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The M.E.N. makes no suggestion that ‘new and compelling evidence’ contradicting the jury’s original verdict exists. But it is yet another hypothetical scenario where, if the case did return to court, it could mean Molnar being compelled to explain the tragic events before a jury all over again.

One frustration for the Makki family is that Molnar’s co-defendant, who was sentenced to a four-month detention and training order for possessing a knife, never gave evidence during the criminal trial.

He was interviewed by police and told officers he was on his phone and distracted so did not see the incident.

Yousef’s sister Jade Akoum told the M.E.N: “I have tried to reach out to his parents but they don’t want to meet me.

“We were angry at first but as time has gone by we would just like some closure.”

In readiness for a potential, future legal battle, the Makki family has launched a Justice for Yousef campaign, aiming to raise £100,000. Yousef ’s sister Jade has launched a Gofundme page at: uk.gofundme. com/f/justice-for-yousef-makki.