Watch: CCTV footage shows controversial businessman assaulting solicitor

Martin Shipton

CCTV footage which clearly shows a controversial businessman assaulting a solicitor has left the victim of the attack astonished that a decision was made to discontinue the court case arising out of the incident.

David Lewis, whose family owns Ffos-y-fran, the largest opencast coal mine in Wales, was due to appear in Newport Magistrates Court on July 14 charged with assaulting solicitor Robert Davies, 75, causing him actual bodily harm.

The men had previously given evidence on opposite sides in a civil action unrelated to the mine.

Mr Lewis, 68, is at the centre of a major row concerning the remediation of the Ffos-y-fran site at Merthyr Tydfil, which is likely to cost more than £100m. There are fears that he will not undertake the necessary restoration work and that the cost will fall on the public sector.

Conditional caution

His court appearance was scheduled because he had not complied with the terms of a conditional caution the police said he was being issued with in relation to the assault, which took place last year outside Mr Davies’ office in Newport.

However, days before Mr Lewis was due in court, his solicitor in the criminal case was sent a “notice of discontinuance” by the Crown Prosecution Service which stated: “I am writing to inform you that I have today sent a notice to the Justices’ chief executive, under section 23 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, discontinuing the following charge against your client: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

“The effect of this notice is that you no longer need to attend court … and that any bail conditions imposed … cease to apply.

“The decision to discontinue these charges has been taken because there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

“This decision has been taken on the evidence, information and evidence provided to the CPS as at the date of this letter. If more significant evidence, information or material is provided or discovered at a later date the decision to discontinue may be reconsidered. In appropriate cases a decision to discontinue may be reconsidered if a new look at the decision shows that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand.

“ … Should your client wish to apply for any costs incurred in respect of these proceedings, you may make a written request to the Justices’ chief executive.”

Condition

In an email to Nation.Cymru, Mr Lewis’ London-based civil solicitors Carter-Ruck, arguably the best-known libel lawyers in Britain, quote from a letter to Mr Lewis from Gwent Police which stated: “The outcome of the case was that you would receive a conditional caution. You made arrangements to complete the relevant course as part of the condition. You did not complete this course and as such have now been referred to court for summons. You had not at any point signed the caution.”

The email to Nation.Cymru added: “On July 14 2025, our client’s matter came before Newport Magistrates Court. Our client was awarded his costs in relation to the discontinuance of charges. Our client has always denied ever being responsible for causing actual bodily harm to the alleged victim, Mr Robert Davies, or committing or threatening any act of violence.

“Further, we are instructed that Mr Davies made numerous other allegations against our client in respect of the same incident which were rejected by the police due to lack of evidence.”

In fact, an earlier email to Mr Davies from a Gwent police officer stated: “Following our discussion on the phone, please find this email as written confirmation of the investigation decision as requested. The investigation and evidence was reviewed by my supervisor and the following decision was made:

“Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr Lewis will receive a conditional caution for this offence with the condition to attend a victim awareness course.

“Threats to kill. No further action will be taken as discussed due to insufficient evidence such as there are no witnesses to the threats and no audio on the CCTV which would make it a case of one word against another unfortunately.

“Witness intimidation. No further action will be taken on this offence as discussed due to insufficient evidence in order to proceed with this offence.”

Responding to the police officer, Mr Davies accepted the decisions in relation to the allegations of assault and threats to kill, but disagreed with the decision not to proceed with the witness intimidation charge. In doing so, he alluded to comments made by a High Court judge when issuing a judgement in a civil action involving both Mr Lewis and Mr Davies, to the effect that Mr Lewis had sought to intimidate Mr Davies.

Nation.Cymru has now obtained CCTV footage of the assault recorded by Mr Davies’ solicitors’ practice. Under GDPR data protection regulations, Mr Davies was originally barred from releasing the footage without the permission of Mr Lewis, which was not forthcoming. Having taken specialist legal advice, however, he has been able to obtain and release the footage as a private citizen, rather than as a solicitor.

Clips from the CCTV footage show Mr Lewis getting out of his car and approaching Mr Davies aggressively, pushing his head towards the older man’s face as he shouted at the solicitor. The shouting began before Mr Lewis left his car.

Mr Davies says he was subjected to serious verbal abuse by Mr Lewis, including threats to his life.

A sequence taken from inside Mr Davies’ office shows Mr Lewis pushing the solicitor violently against a window and grabbing him by the throat. This resulted in bleeding and what has become a permanent scar.

Subsequently Mr Davies’ son James Davies, also a solicitor in the practice, went to speak to Mr Lewis, who told him he had only given his father “a bit of a shake”.

Mr Davies said: “The CCTV footage allows people to judge this man for themselves. What I’m now doing is turning my attention to the failure of Gwent Police to secure a conviction in these circumstances.

“The Peel Report into Gwent Police, published in June, stated that improvements were needed.

“I have documented every step of the process followed by Gwent Police since I made my initial complaint and it is deeply concerning – it is this that now needs to be tackled for the benefit not only of my own clients and myself, but others who need to rely on Gwent Police when they call upon them. I am writing to the Chief Constable to ask for a meeting.”

In an email to Nation.Cymru, Carter-Ruck stated: “Our client has made his position clear in relation to the alleged criminal conduct …That case is now closed and was discontinued due to lack of evidence. As we have said, reporting on the claims of Mr Davies in respect of a matter which has been withdrawn due to lack of evidence does not absolve you of any potential liability for the publication of false and defamatory statements.

“ … Our client is the director of the company that operated the Ffos-y-Fran mine. Contrary to your repeated assertions, he is not, and never has been, the owner. We are instructed that both internal and external contractors are currently on site at the Ffos-y-Fran undertaking restoration responsibilities, the scope of which is governed by various legal agreements. Works are reviewed and conducted in consultation with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.”

Mr Lewis is a director of Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, which operated Ffos-y-fran mine, latterly illegally after the licence expired.

Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd is owned by Gwent Investments Ltd, of which Mr Lewis is the sole director.

Gwent Investments is, in turn, owned by a company called Gwent Holdings, of which Mr Lewis’ wife Jayne and brother Andrew are the directors, and Mrs Lewis is the person with significant control.

During a High Court hearing last year, Mrs Lewis admitted that her husband took decisions in her name and the judge stated: “Mr Lewis is, as I have indicated, the directing mind and will of Gwent. While he does not have a shareholding and is not a director, he takes the decisions.”