Defendant explains positive drug test by saying dead friend may have spiked drink

Monday 21 March 2016

A teenager facing a perverting the course of justice charge over Morgan Huelin’s death has told the court that the dead boy may have ordered drugs from his computer and that he may have spiked his drink with a former legal high.

As the evidence in the case closed on Friday, the defendant whose house the boys slept in before discovering their friend unconscious the following morning told the court that he didn’t know why he had tested positive for a banned substance, Etizolam, when tested the next day. All five teenagers deny perverting course of justice.

And the boy – who also faces charges in relation to possessing drugs at the house and possessing indecent images of children – also admitted that he had accessed the notorious “dark web” site Silk Road, used to sell anything from guns to drugs to indecent images of children.

A sample from the transcript of the cross-examination by prosecutor Howard Sharp QC follows:

Sharp – “One of the websites that you accessed was the Silk Road website?”

Defendant – “That’s true.”

Sharp – “Have you ordered drugs from the Silk Road website?”

Defendant – “I have not, personally.”

Sharp – “Has anyone used your computer to acquire drugs from the Silk Road website?”

Defendant – “Morgan may have done.”

Sharp – “Is the reality that you have been using the Bitcoin account to acquire drugs for others?”

Defendant – “No.”

Sharp – “You told us that Morgan at the time of the party said that he wanted to come back to your house.”

Defendant – “Yes.”

Sharp – “Was that because he wanted to get the drugs that you had ordered for him?”

Defendant – “No.”

Sharp – “Is that why both your breath samples tested positive?”

Defendant – “No, it is not.”

Sharp – “You said in evidence yesterday that you thought Morgan had spiked your drink without you noticing.”

Defendant – “I believe I suggested it as a possibility.”

The case for the defence has now closed, and the court is sitting again on Monday morning to hear closing arguments, with a verdict unlikely until Tuesday.

Because the defendants are under 18, nothing that identifies them may be published.

The case continues.