Offer of No Evidence in Counterfeit Currency Case

Our client was a vulnerable young man charged with passing counterfeit currency as genuine. He pleaded not guilty in proceedings before Basildon Crown Court. The defendant was stopped by shop security after counterfeit notes were detected at the till when he attempted to purchase some clothing. He went with security, and the police were called. On recorded body-worn video, our client provided his details to the officer and explained he had no idea the notes were counterfeit, stating he had received the cash after selling his motorbike. He attended a voluntary interview, during which he provided a prepared statement offering the same explanation.

Unfortunately, our client had been recalled for other matters, so he spent his time awaiting trial in custody. We analysed the evidence, including the expert’s analysis of the counterfeit notes and their images. It was our view as his defence team that, to a layman’s eye, the notes appeared genuine, and therefore his defence that he did not know or suspect the notes to be counterfeit was credible. We had our client psychologically assessed, being aware of his significant vulnerabilities. We asked the expert to consider his IQ and suggestibility with a view to evidence of how likely our client was to question or suspect notes to be counterfeit. Our psychologist found that this lack of critical thinking was supported by high suggestibility and low IQ, among other difficulties.

The offences took place in August 2022, and the trial was not listed until two years later in August 2024. Unfortunately, due to a lack of capacity in the Court following the COVID-19 pandemic, his trial was put back to a warned list in August 2025, a full three years after the alleged offending. Our client was aggrieved by this, as the failure to receive an outcome in this matter affected the parole board’s decision regarding his recall. He therefore remained in custody. We began by making representations to the Court for an earlier trial date, explaining that while our client was on technical bail for this case, he had been recalled, and ultimately his liberty was still affected by the outcome of the case. We submitted that the case should therefore be a priority listing. However, the Court was unable to offer us an earlier trial date.

Our next step was to make representations to the Prosecution to reconsider their decision to prosecute. We argued, first and foremost, that there was no realistic prospect of conviction, for the following reasons:

1. The cash appeared genuine to a layman;
2. An explanation was provided at the first possible occasion and maintained; and
3. Our client has no history of dishonest offences.

As such, we considered that there was no reasonable prospect a jury would convict our client. We also argued that the prosecution was not in the public interest, raising the following points:

1. Our client was only 18 at the time of the offence, and his maturity at the time must therefore weigh into the Crown’s assessment of culpability;
2. Given the lack of relevant previous convictions, the offending is unlikely to be repeated or escalated;
3. The delay in this matter is significant and concerning, with the trial warned three years after the offending. This delay prejudices the defendant;
4. There is no identifiable complainant whose needs must be satisfied by having a trial.

We relied on the Crown’s own COVID-19 guidance, which urges the prosecution to consider whether matters can be resolved without trial, and in this matter, we invited them to offer no evidence. Within weeks of our representations being submitted, the Crown agreed to offer no evidence. As such, these proceedings against our client concluded, and a not guilty verdict was entered. Our client was pleased to have no pending matters and is hopeful that the parole board will receive this news well as they consider his release. His family said: 'I thank you for all you have done, and it hasn’t been easy and so frustrating for all of us. But I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your professional help and support with kind regards and merry Christmas.'

The solicitor with conduct of this case was Phoebe Coleman, assisted by paralegal Natasha Hardaker. Phoebe instructed Nick Bonehill of 2 Bedford Row, who provided reliable advice and exemplary representation throughout.