THE man who was accused of murdering children’s care worker Danny Fox has walked free from court after jury failed to reach a verdict in a retrial.

Leighton Holt, 21, of Custley Hey, Stockbridge Village, was standing trial after Danny suffered a fatal stab wound in the early hours of September 2 last year on the car park of Sports Direct on North John Street.

On Wednesday the foreman of the jury told a tense courtroom that they were unlikely to reach a verdict, after judge Mr Justice Neil Garnham asked if more time would have helped them to reach a decision.

Holt, who had mounted a case of self-defence, was formally discharged by the judge, who declared a verdict of not guilty, at around 1pm after the prosecution confirmed it would not seek a second retrial.

Friends and family of Danny met the news with silence in the courtroom after the second trial into the case failed to reach a verdict.

Holt punched the air as he left the dock with members of his family in tears in the public gallery.

Kim Egerton, of the prosecution, said: “The matter has been considered by the chief crown prosecutor and came to the conclusion as to whether there were exceptional circumstances to warrant a retrial after a second hung jury.

“After discussing the matter in some detail (it) has come to the conclusion that those exceptional circumstances don’t exist and no second trial will be sought.”

The jury had been deliberating on the case since 1.30pm on Tuesday afternoon last week and spent 28 hours and 34 minutes in deliberation before being discharged.

Two members of the jury had been discharged, reducing the jury to 10 with the judge saying he would accept a 9-1 or 10-0 verdict. However, the remaining 10 jurors failed to reach a verdict.

Yesterday, the judge spoke to the jury after a number of questions were raised.

Judge Mr Justice Neil Garnham said: “On questions concerning reasonableness either of force or response, what is or isn’t reasonable is entirely for you as a jury to determine.

“You must remember that reasonableness must be assessed within the confines and facts and circumstances as Mr Holt believes them to be.

“Some of you are of the belief that using a knife is an unreasonable act regardless of the level of force.

That’s not acceptable because the reasonableness of any act can’t be determined but must be determined in accordance with my directions.

“You must assess the conduct and context of the evidence in this case.

“With regards to carrying a knife nothing has been deemed acceptable. Whether Mr Holt had a reason for carrying a knife is for you. However it is the using of a knife that must be assessed.

“It’s entirely a matter for you what constitutes reasonable force. You must decide whether the force used is reasonable.

“If Mr Fox was an aggressor and Mr Holt’s actions aggression was in response to that you must turn to my direction to self-defence.

“On the topic of manslaughter if the prosecution have not negated self-defence your verdict must be not guilty. Self-defence is a defence against all charges.”