TWO men stand accused of killing Andrew Main following a violent confrontation outside the Swansea Travelodge on Wednesday (Jul 17). The defendants face charges of murder and manslaughter in connection with Mr Main’s death.
Prosecution barrister David Elias KC described the defendants as “aggressors throughout,” asserting that Mr Main had acted as a peacemaker earlier in the evening. According to the prosecution, Mr Main had left the Travelodge to defuse tensions, only to be pursued and fatally attacked moments later.
“He ran away,” Mr Elias told the jury. “He posed no threat to them. There was no justification for the violence that followed, certainly no justification for a punch so hard it rendered him unconscious, or for further blows to the head while he lay defenceless on the ground.”
The prosecution contends that the attack was a single, continuous act of violence, supported by witness testimonies. Key evidence includes accounts from Rachel Yates, the Travelodge receptionist, and Daniel Lamb, a guest who captured the incident on his phone.
Additional evidence was provided by Mr Singh, a local resident who witnessed part of the attack from his flat. The prosecution described Mr Singh as an “impartial and independent” witness, emphasising that his 999 call during the attack aligns with their version of events.
Medical experts testified that Mr Main’s injuries, including severe brain trauma and multiple facial fractures, were caused by “multiple blows” rather than a single punch or fall. This evidence, the prosecution argued, contradicts the defendants’ claims of self-defence.
“The defendants initially told police, ‘We both did,’ when asked who was responsible,” Mr Elias said. “Their explanations have since been moulded to fit the evidence, but the facts speak for themselves.”
The defence presented differing interpretations of the events. John Hipkin KC, representing one defendant, argued that his client acted instinctively after being attacked, insisting that his client was not the aggressor. Christopher Rees KC, representing the second defendant, questioned the reliability of witness accounts, particularly those of Rachel Yates, and accused the prosecution of withholding CCTV evidence.
Both defence lawyers argued that their clients responded proportionately to an escalating situation initiated by Mr Main and his friend, Mr Bell. According to the defendants, they acted out of fear of further violence after being attacked.
His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC emphasised the importance of impartiality and careful consideration of the evidence. Addressing the jury, he said: “You must be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendants were not acting in lawful self-defence.”
The trial continues.