Proposed witness summons:
Damien William McMullen
Purpose. This note sets out the proposed defence basis for requiring Damien William McMullen to attend and give evidence if he will not give a reliable, unequivocal undertaking to attend voluntarily. It is intended as working material for Mr Hussain and can be adapted into the formal Part 17 application if required.
- Court
- Westminster Magistrates’ Court
- Defendant
- Samuel William Howard Robinson-Adams
- Complainant
- Oliver Babington Wilson
- Proposed witness
- Damien William McMullen
- Application
- Witness summons under section 97 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and CrimPR Part 17
- URN
- 01FH1151226
- Police casefile reference
- 01/FH/11512/26
1. Nature of the application
The defence proposes, if necessary, to apply for a witness summons requiring Damien William McMullen to attend the trial and give oral evidence. The application is not based on Mr McMullen’s character or on the fact that he and the defendant later fell out. It is based on identifiable first-hand evidence which he can give about disputed events and communications.
The evidence can be particularised in advance. The defence does not seek to put Mr McMullen in the witness box merely to see what he might say.
2. The factual issue
The served prosecution material already attaches significance to 12 April 2026 as the point at which the relationship between Mr Wilson and the defendant ended and later contact became unwanted. The MG5 police report states:
“Wilson confirmed that the relationship ended following this assault.”
MG5 Police Report, “Assault”, created 18 June 2026.
Mr Wilson’s first MG11 statement is less date-specific but adopts the same broad chronology:
Statement of Oliver Babington Wilson, 27 May 2026.
His further statement says that after the 12 April incident the defendant continued contacting him and that Mr Wilson had made clear on multiple occasions that he wanted no contact:
“I have made it clear to Adams on multiple occasions that I do not want any contact with him.”
Further statement of Oliver Babington Wilson, 28 May 2026.
The MG5 also records that Mr Wilson gave a VRI in which he disclosed alleged coercive and controlling behaviour. The complete VRI has not yet been served to the defence. The served summary refers expressly to that VRI.
Against that prosecution chronology, Mr McMullen has direct knowledge of communications between the parties after 12 April and has himself acknowledged that knowledge. During the recorded 14 July call, the defendant put the MG5 formulation to him and the parties discussed the post-12-April communications. The significance of the recording is therefore principally what it establishes about Mr McMullen’s knowledge and reaction, rather than as a secondary source for the prosecution wording itself.
3. Mr McMullen’s direct knowledge of the April relationship
3.1 He personally accepted that there was a relationship
On 14 July, in a recorded call, the defendant asked Mr McMullen whether he was telling the truth about his relationship with Mr Wilson. Mr McMullen replied:
Recorded call, 14 July 2026.
Later in the same call, while discussing the evidential significance of the post-12-April material, Mr McMullen said:
“I mean, I’m sure you were in some sort of relationship.”
“I was in a group chat for sure, yeah, I saw it.”
“I got that impression whenever I went to the Chelsea Cloisters way back when.”
Recorded call, 14 July 2026. The audio is the primary source; automated transcripts should be treated only as an index.
3.2 He was present for post-12-April relationship communications
The same call moves immediately into communications from the period between 12 and 18 April. The defendant reads Mr Wilson’s words “I love you Sam” and “I love you so much” while explaining that these were sent after 12 April:
Material played/read during the 14 July call; Mr McMullen had just acknowledged being in the group chat and seeing it.
The point for the proposed summons is narrow. Mr McMullen need not decide whether the relationship was healthy, exclusive, conventional or legally significant. He can give first-hand evidence that he was a participant in or recipient of communications in which the parties continued to speak in relationship terms after 12 April, and that he saw those communications contemporaneously.
4. 9 May: Mr McMullen expected continuing contact
Mr McMullen’s own contemporaneous messages several weeks later are also relevant to his understanding at the time. On 9 May he told the defendant:
Messenger message from Damien McMullen, 9 May 2026.
He then advised that a short pause in emails and group chats would probably lead to renewed communication:
“If you give it a few days with no emails or group chats he’ll soon enough speak with you!”
Messenger message from Damien McMullen, 9 May 2026.
And he expressly rejected the defendant’s suggestion that Mr Wilson might “leave” him:
“I didn’t say he may leave you, nor do I think that’s the case.”
Messenger message from Damien McMullen, 9 May 2026.
These statements do not prove what Mr Wilson privately intended. They are material because they show what a mutual friend who had been involved in the April communications understood and was telling the defendant at the time. That is capable of bearing on any later contention that the position from 12 April onwards was already clear, final and universally understood.
5. 27 May: what Mr McMullen knew before the house visit
Mr McMullen also received contemporaneous messages from the defendant before the 27 May visit to the Cherny address. Those messages are relevant to what Mr McMullen knew about the defendant’s stated purpose before the visit occurred.
Message from the defendant to Mr McMullen, 27 May 2026 at 10:03.
Message from the defendant to Mr McMullen, 27 May 2026 at 14:32.
Message from the defendant to Mr McMullen, 27 May 2026 at 16:40.
Those messages do not, by themselves, determine the defendant’s actual purpose or the legal character of the later visit. They do mean that Mr McMullen is a direct witness to what the defendant said his purpose was before the event, rather than a person who learnt that explanation only afterwards.
Mr Wilson’s own first statement independently records that the defendant had announced the proposed visit that morning:
Statement of Oliver Babington Wilson, 27 May 2026, recording the defendant’s 09:47 email.
This does not establish consent to the visit. It does, however, provide an independent prosecution-source record that the visit had been announced as a proposed discussion with “the two of you”. Mr McMullen’s evidence is material to what the defendant had said about the intended subject and purpose of that discussion before he arrived.
Mr McMullen can also be asked whether he passed on the requested message, whether he contacted Mr Wilson or anyone in the Cherny household, and what he understood was about to happen.
6. Mr McMullen’s post-arrest communication with Mr Wilson
There is a further discrete subject on which Mr McMullen has first-hand evidence. He and Mr Wilson communicated privately around the night of 27–28 May, after the defendant’s arrest. Mr McMullen’s own copy of that conversation was subsequently absent/deleted. The defence need not ask the court to draw any adverse inference merely from deletion in order for the evidence to be material. Mr McMullen can give direct evidence of what he remembers discussing with Mr Wilson at a critical point in the chronology.
In later exchanges Mr McMullen said:
“I’m sure Oli still has the messages. I could quite easily find out if I wanted to.”
Later group conversation concerning the missing 27–28 May exchange.
The proposed evidence is therefore capable of being particularised: whether Mr Wilson described the events to Mr McMullen; whether the two discussed the nature or history of the relationship; whether they discussed what the Cherny household had been told; and whether anything was said about the account subsequently given to police.
The defence should not allege in the witness-summons application that the missing conversation proves collusion or any criminal conduct. Its materiality is simpler: Mr McMullen was one of the people with whom the complainant communicated immediately after a central event and can be asked what was said.
7. Why Mr McMullen’s evidence is material rather than cumulative
Mr McMullen occupies an unusual evidential position. The defendant can give evidence of his own beliefs and intentions. Mr Wilson can give his account. The message archives can establish what was written. Mr McMullen, however, is a third person who:
- knew both parties before the alleged offending;
- had observed them together in person;
- was included in post-12-April group conversations;
- has acknowledged seeing those conversations;
- was communicating with the defendant about Mr Wilson on 9 May;
- received contemporaneous messages before the 27 May visit;
- communicated with Mr Wilson around the defendant’s arrest; and
- has subsequently discussed the prosecution chronology in recorded calls.
His evidence therefore has potential value independent of the mere existence of the electronic records. It can establish participation, contemporaneous knowledge, the provenance and context of communications, and what he personally observed or was told at relevant times.
The prosecution papers themselves repeatedly frame the defendant as an “ex-partner” in the relevant later period. The MG5 identifies the suspect’s relationship to Mr Wilson as “Ex-partner”, and the first MG11 statement opens by describing the defendant as Mr Wilson’s “ex-partner”. Mr McMullen’s first-hand evidence is therefore capable of testing a factual premise already embedded in the prosecution presentation.
If the VRI states more specifically that the relationship ended on 12 April, that Mr Wilson blocked the defendant then, or that subsequent contact was wholly unwanted, Mr McMullen’s evidence becomes more material still because he can speak to the factual position immediately after that date without relying solely on either principal party’s later recollection.
8. Voluntary attendance and why a summons may be necessary
The defence should be candid about Mr McMullen’s attendance position. The record demonstrates substantial equivocation, but not a continuous categorical refusal.
On 10 August Mr McMullen wrote:
“Maybe I’ll see you in court. I haven’t decided if I’ll be bothered to go.”
Instagram message from Damien McMullen, 10 August 2026.
He then stated that he intended to block the defendant. On 18 August, however, he later wrote:
“If it would make you happy, I’ll go to court, but it’s just circus.”
Group message from Damien McMullen, 18 August 2026.
Later messages also refer to matters coming out “in court”. It would therefore be inaccurate to tell the court, without more, that Mr McMullen has flatly refused to attend.
The proposed course is that Mr Hussain first writes directly to Mr McMullen, identifies the trial date and the broad subjects on which his evidence is required, and asks for an unequivocal written undertaking to attend voluntarily. If Mr McMullen refuses, does not respond, attaches conditions, or otherwise leaves his attendance uncertain, the earlier record of equivocation explains why compulsory process is reasonably sought.
If Mr McMullen gives a reliable unconditional undertaking and the defence is satisfied that he will attend, the statutory basis for compulsory attendance may no longer be made out. The purpose of this note is to ensure that, if the opposite occurs, the materiality case is already assembled.
9. Proposed narrow scope of Mr McMullen’s evidence
The defence can identify the anticipated evidence without inviting a general inquiry into his later disputes with the defendant. The principal questions are:
- What was Mr McMullen’s knowledge of the relationship between the defendant and Mr Wilson before 12 April 2026?
- Was he a participant in or recipient of group communications between 12 and 18 April, and what did he personally see Mr Wilson say?
- Did he see communications in which Mr Wilson referred to the parties as boyfriends, expressed love, or discussed whether and how the relationship could continue?
- Why did he tell the defendant on 9 May that the parties had a “unique bond”, that Mr Wilson would probably speak to him again after a short pause, and that he did not think Mr Wilson would “leave” him?
- What did the defendant tell him on 27 May before attending the Cherny address?
- Was Mr McMullen asked to pass a message or alert anyone before the defendant arrived, and did he do so?
- What communication did Mr McMullen have with Mr Wilson around 27–28 May, and what can he now recall of its subject matter?
- What did Mr McMullen understand, at the relevant times, about the account being given to the Cherny household and later to police?
Questions concerning later insults, personal hostility, accusations of bad character, or wider disputes should be included only to the extent that they become necessary to explain a change of account, a claimed lack of memory, or a challenge to credibility. They are not the principal basis for the summons.
10. Proposed order
The defence can provide the court with a concise schedule of the relevant communications and recordings. The underlying audio and message records can be produced if required.
11. Schedule of principal material
| Date | Material | Proposition | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12–18 Apr | Group communications involving Damien | Damien was present for post-12-April relationship communications. | Audio |
| 14 Jul | Recorded call | Damien acknowledges “some sort of relationship”, being in the group chat and seeing it. | Audio |
| 18 Jun / 14 Jul | MG5 formulation and recorded discussion | The served MG5 states “Wilson confirmed that the relationship ended following this assault”; on 14 July the formulation and contrary April material are discussed with Damien. | MG5 · Audio |
| 9 May | Damien → Sam messages | “Unique bond”; expected renewed contact after a short pause; did not think Oli would “leave” Sam. | Messages |
| 27 May | Sam → Damien messages before visit | Damien was told beforehand that Sam intended to tell Cherny about the alleged parallel relationship and was asked to pass a message before arrival. | Messages |
| 27 May | Wilson MG11 statement | Wilson independently records receipt of the 09:47 email announcing: “I am going to visit the two of you to discuss this.” | MG11 |
| 27–28 May | Damien ↔ Oli conversation | Damien communicated with Oli around the arrest and can give direct evidence of what was discussed. | Later reference |
| 10 Aug | Damien attendance message | Express equivocation about whether he could be “bothered” to attend court. | Message |
| 18 Aug | Damien attendance message | Later qualified willingness to attend; relevant to the need for a fresh, unequivocal undertaking before seeking compulsory process. | Message |