John Henry Sayers and Son Cleared at Old Bailey After Lou's Diner Attack

A father and son have been cleared of causing grievous bodily harm following a high-profile Old Bailey trial linked to the dramatic attack on a Newcastle diner that shocked the city.

John Henry Sayers senior, 62, and his son John Henry Sayers junior, 29, were unanimously found not guilty after prosecutors alleged they seriously injured Walter Patterson following an attack on the family's business, Lou's Diner, on Fossway in Walker.

The pair maintained they acted in self-defence after a Range Rover was deliberately reversed into the front of the restaurant before being set alight on 2 February 2025. After hearing the evidence, the jury accepted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The verdict brings to an end one of the North East's most closely followed criminal trials of the past year, with the case attracting widespread attention because of the dramatic circumstances and the longstanding public profile of the Sayers family in Newcastle.

CCTV captured dramatic attack.

Jurors were shown CCTV footage showing a Range Rover reversing into Lou's Diner twice before front-seat passenger Walter Patterson got out and set the vehicle on fire.

Prosecutors told the court that John Henry Sayers senior armed himself with a machete while his son picked up an iron bar before pursuing Patterson.

Patterson suffered serious injuries, including deep wounds to his left forearm and broken ribs. The court heard forensic tests found his blood on both the machete and the iron bar recovered by police.

Officers arriving at the scene found Sayers senior still holding the machete and he was Tasered after initially refusing to drop it.

Despite those facts, the defence argued both men believed they were responding to an immediate and violent threat after witnessing a deliberate attack on their family's business. They told the jury their actions amounted to lawful self-defence.

Jury returns unanimous verdict.

After deliberating for just over three-and-a-half hours, jurors unanimously acquitted both defendants.

The father and son embraced in the dock after the verdicts were announced, bringing weeks of evidence to an end.

The jury also heard that the Sayers family had experienced a number of violent incidents in the years leading up to the attack on Lou's Diner. Defence lawyers argued that background helped explain why the pair believed they were in danger when the restaurant came under attack.

Sayers family well known in Newcastle.

The Sayers family has been a familiar name in Newcastle for decades and has featured in numerous court cases and regional news reports over the years.

John Henry Sayers senior has previously appeared before the courts. In 2018, he was convicted of perverting the course of justice during the investigation into the shooting of Newcastle doorman Reed Black and was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison. He was acquitted of allegations that he had ordered the shooting, meaning that conviction related solely to interfering with the course of justice.

Those earlier proceedings were entirely separate from the Lou's Diner case and were not matters the Old Bailey jury was asked to decide.

The trial instead focused exclusively on whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the force used against Walter Patterson amounted to unlawful grievous bodily harm rather than lawful self-defence.

Lou's Diner attack shocked the city.

The attack on Lou's Diner quickly became one of Newcastle's most talked-about crime stories.

Images showing a Range Rover embedded in the front of the building before it burst into flames were widely shared online, while emergency services responded to the incident in Walker.

The case also highlighted the impact serious criminal damage can have on local businesses. According to the Office for National Statistics, police in England and Wales continue to record hundreds of thousands of criminal damage and arson offences each year, demonstrating the ongoing cost these crimes have for communities and business owners.

Although incidents involving vehicles being deliberately driven into commercial premises are relatively uncommon, they often cause significant structural damage and pose serious risks to staff, customers and emergency responders.

Verdict closes latest chapter.

The prosecution argued the injuries suffered by Walter Patterson amounted to grievous bodily harm and that the force used went beyond what was legally justified.

The defence maintained throughout the trial that both men believed they were acting to protect themselves and their family after a violent attack on their restaurant.

Ultimately, the jury concluded the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and unanimously found both defendants not guilty.

The verdict closes another chapter in a case that has attracted considerable attention across Newcastle, although the attack on Lou's Diner remains one of the city's most dramatic criminal incidents in recent years.

Related: John Henry Sayers injured in HMP Frankland attack.

Since the events at Lou's Diner, John Henry Sayers senior has again made headlines after being seriously injured during an unrelated attack inside HMP Frankland in County Durham.

Teesside Crown Court heard that convicted murderer Donald Gaote-Oueyeya attacked Sayers during association time on 30 April 2025 using an improvised bladed weapon made from prison cutlery. Sayers suffered serious injuries, including a deep wound to his neck, cuts to his forehead and injuries to his hand before being taken to hospital. A prison officer was also injured while attempting to intervene.

Gaote-Oueyeya later admitted wounding with intent and assaulting an emergency worker, receiving an additional four-year prison sentence.

The prison assault was entirely separate from the Lou's Diner proceedings and played no part in the Old Bailey trial that resulted in John Henry Sayers senior and John Henry Sayers junior being acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm.

Share your thoughts below.

What do you make of the jury's verdict in this Newcastle case?