The brother of the Manchester suicide bomber decided not to give evidence at his own trial because his cover story – placing all the blame on his dead sibling – had been revealed as an attempt to “pull the wool over the eyes” of investigators, a court heard

Hashem Abedi was accused of standing shoulder to shoulder with his brother, Salman, sharing a common goal to kill and maim as many people as possible in what proved to be one of the deadliest terror attacks the UK has seen, the Old Bailey heard.

Abedi had acted as quartermaster, chauffeur and technician in the planning of the attack and had tried to evade responsibility for the “cruel and cowardly carnage” unleashed on his innocent victims by blaming his brother, according to the prosecution.

On Thursday, during the final days of his trial, Abedi, 22 – who is accused of helping to plan the May 2017 attack and helping to build the suicide bomb that his brother detonated at the end of an Ariana Grande concert – sacked his legal team and declined to give evidence in his own defence or to be present in the dock.

Justice Jeremy Baker told the jury, who had sat through six weeks of evidence, that Abedi no longer wanted to participate in his own trial and that it would proceed to a conclusion without Abedi’s presence.

Prior to the jury being informed of his decision, Abedi’s lead counsel, Stephen Kamlish QC, and his team, who had represented him for almost four months, left the courtroom. Abedi had been represented by the renowned human rights and civil liberties law firm Birnberg Pierce. The firm are currently representing Shamima Begum, and previous clients have included the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and Guantánamo detainee Moazzam Begg.

Baker instructed the jury not to draw any adverse conclusions from Abedi’s absence from the courtroom, informing them he would be limiting the prosecution’s closing speeches in the interest of “balance and fairness” as no one would now be making a submission on Abedi’s behalf.

In his closing speech, prosecutor Duncan Penny, described Abedi’s absence as a “thundering silence” and an attempt to avoid exposing his own guilt and alleged involvement in the bomb plot.

Referring to Abedi’s only defence – a statement given to police last summer after being extradited from Libya in which he denied any involvement – Penny said it was “demonstratively riddled with lies”.

“It was an attempt by the defendant to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigators and point the finger of responsibility at his dead brother. At its most fundamental level it was an attempt to evade responsibility for his own culpability for the cruel and cowardly carnage,” he added.

The former Burnage high school pupil, who studied electronics at college, attempted to portray himself as yet another victim of his extremist brother, the court was told. Jurors heard how Abedi answered “no comment” in police interviews after being extradited to the UK last year, but handed detectives a prepared statement in which he said he “could not comprehend” his brother’s actions.

However, Penny argued he was “just as responsible for this atrocity … as surely as if he had selected the target and detonated the bomb himself”, spending months working alongside his brother collecting ingredients and building prototype bombs until the final device was assembled.

He said the reason for his reluctance to go into the witness box was because he was in on the plan, “from start to finish”.

He added: “The simple truth is, he was a willing and skilled accomplice, acting at all times with his brother to bring about the common goal.”

Penny went through a series of questions he would have asked the accused given the chance, including the purchase of a Nissan Micra used to store bomb-making equipment; the reason for his finger and thumbprints on improvised detonators and prototype explosive devices made out of tin cans; and the reason for having 10 different mobile phones in the months leading up to the bombing; and “whether in truth the reason he has chosen not to give evidence is because there is no answer to the questions which would have been posed.”

He added Abedi had “every opportunity” to give his side of the story in court, to denounce his brother and condemn his actions.

But Penny claimed he chose not to do so because he was a “willing and skilled accomplice”.

“At times a chauffeur, at times a quartermaster, at times an electrical technician. We suggest there is one reason he is absent - the questions that he would have had to have answered would quickly have revealed that he stood shoulder to shoulder with his dead brother steeped with shared culpability,” he added.

The trial continues.