Ryan Kirk cleared of all charges over Daniel Spargo-Mabbs drugs death

Daniel spargo-Mabbs died after taking ecstasy at a rave

Daniel spargo-Mabbs died after taking ecstasy at a rave

First published in News News Shopper: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

A youth accused of supplying ecstasy to a teenager who later died has been cleared of all charges

Ryan Kirk spent six months on remand awaiting trial accused of supplying 2.5 grams of the drug to Daniel Spargo-Mabbs and his friends on January 17.

But today Mr Kirk was acquitted of one count of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs on that night.

The 21-year-old was also found not guilty of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs between January 1 last year and January 16, and cleared of being concerned in the supply of class B drugs during the same period.

Detectives believed Mr Kirk, of Puffin Close, Beckenham, was the man who rode up to Daniel’s friends on a bike and handed over the drugs after they gave him £80 in a deal behind warehouses near the Tesco in Elmers End.

Daniel, of Rymer Road, Croydon, died at Kings College Hospital days after he collapsed at the rave in a disused cotton factory in Hayes, west London, after taking ecstasy.

The Archbishop Tenison’s School pupil became ill and unconscious and his body temperature had risen so high causing a metabolic reaction and his muscles broke down and he had three heart attacks.

Jurors heard Daniel’s friends could not be sure it was him who did the drugs deal on the night of the rave.

The drugs were ordered by phone by one of Daniel’s friends calling a drug dealer known as Shampz.

Eighteen-year-old Shampz, whose real name is Nicqueel Pitrora, was due to stand trial alongside Mr Kirk but pleaded guilty to three charges just before the trial began.

Pitrora, of London Road, Croydon, will be sentenced on August 1 for being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs on January 17, being concerned in the supply of class B drugs between January 1 last year and January 16 and one count of possession of cannabis on January 21.

In a statement released after the jury announced their not guilty verdicts, Daniel’s parents Fiona and Tim said: "Daniel was an incredible boy, and an incredible son, who we loved with all our hearts, who made a very bad decision on January 17.

"Over the course of the next three days in January we had to watch him slowly die, as the drug he had taken caused everything inside him to stop functioning.

"We would willingly have given our lives in place of his if we could, and when Daniel died a part of us also died.

"As a family with a massive gaping hole now in our centre, we're slowly trying to rebuild our lives into whatever our 'new normal' will be but we've barely begun and have a long and very hard road ahead of us.

"Our biggest hope and prayer has always been that those responsible would through this legal process connect their actions with their consequences, that their hearts and minds would be changed by this, and that they wouldn't waste the rest of their lives continuing to supply drugs and playing their part in the damage, destruction and death of other people's children.

"We believe very strongly that Dan is safe with God, and that we will be with him again one day and this does bring hope.

"But the despair remains in having to walk through each day of the rest of our lives without him, because of this one bad decision.

"The person who supplied this drug has choices remaining to them and the rest of their lives in which to make them, and we will continue to pray that they choose to use them for good."

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:14pm Sat 19 Jul 14

alroutemaster says...

Why, if the person who his friends admitted buying the drugs from had pleaded guilty, was this farce of a trial allowed to go ahead? They had no reasonable chance of a conviction it seems, but the CPS just went ahead and wasted taxpayers' money. Why?
Why, if the person who his friends admitted buying the drugs from had pleaded guilty, was this farce of a trial allowed to go ahead? They had no reasonable chance of a conviction it seems, but the CPS just went ahead and wasted taxpayers' money. Why? alroutemaster
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree