A TRIAL was sensationally stopped when witnesses to a brutal attack in Liversedge changed their evidence.
Victim Byron Schofield, now 20, was left with brain damage following a savage beating off Leeds Road in August 2010.
Mohammed Azad, 49, and 19-year-old Azar Azad, were charged with attempted murder and appeared at Leeds Crown Court for a trial which started last Monday.
But witnesses changed their testimony, leaving prosecutors with just forensic evidence that only placed the two accused at the scene.
As such the Crown Prosecution Service decided to pull their case as there was nothing else tying the two men to the alleged attack.
District Crown Prosecutor for Yorkshire and Humberside Helen Sanderson said: “This is not a decision we took lightly.
“But it was the only option, as we came to the conclusion that there was no longer a realistic prospect of convicting the two defendants.”
Byron suffered a fractured skull in the attack.
Pieces of bone went into his brain, leaving him with learning difficulties.  He is also paralysed down his left side and has a device on his legs that corrects electrical impulses to allow him to walk.
Byron, who was living in Heckmondwike at the time, was training to be a bricklayer but will now never work.
His devastated mum Janine Rouse, of Lupset, Wakefield, is his full-time carer.
She said of the trial being stopped: “I’m in total shock. I’ve not slept since last Wednesday night. I just can’t believe it.
“He was training to be a bricklayer. There’s no way he can do anything like that now.
“His life will never be the same again.”
Byron was set upon just before midnight in a ginnel off Leeds Road which runs from the A62 into the Firthcliffe Estate.
Leeds Road was closed off from its entrance to the Firthcliffe Estate to the Swan traffic lights until next lunchtime for a police investigation.
The Crown Prose-cution Service have already met with Mrs Rouse to explain why the case against the two defendants was dropped.
Mrs Sanderson of the CPS added: “Witnesses gave police statements which provided strong evidence against both defendants.
“It was on this basis that a charge of attempted murder was pursued. But at the trial their accounts differed significantly from their initial statements.
“This greatly weakened the case against the two defendants, meaning that we could no longer prove our case.
“The defendants’ DNA was found at the scene.
“Unfortunately on its own it was not enough to proceed with the case.
“Both admitted being at the scene, but denied responsibility for the attack.
“Without the witness evidence we thought we had, the DNA did not assist.”