Successful Application to Dismiss on an Aggravated Burglary with a Firearm

Our client has been acquitted following a successful application to dismiss before the commencement of trial.

It was alleged that our client and three others drove to Kent in one vehicle in the early hours of the morning and burgled a farm. Inside were 3 complainants all of whom gave witness statement of 5-10 young men threatening them with a firearm and a machete and rifling through their property after smashing glass doors to gain entry.  Our client was stopped very close to the address due to driving “slowly and uncertainly” which apparently aroused suspicion. 

Our client and the 3 others in his vehicle were arrested and charged with aggravated burglary. We took issue with the many failings within the prosecution’s evidence, the height of which appeared to be that he was driving in the area a short time after the offence.

Lack of Identification

No formal identification procedure took place to identify the defendants following their arrest. This was despite the complainants giving very racially specific descriptions (which did not match the defendants), and them saying they may recognise them again. The defendants were all co-operative on arrest, with several confirming in interview that they would comply with ID procedures and suggesting their arrest was racially motivated. Multiple defendants gave reasons for being in the area, and urged police to make thorough investigations and forensic testing.

The descriptions given by the complainants of the suspects was starkly different to the appearance of our client and the other defendants. This included both the description of the clothing the suspects are said to have worn, and their race and features.  

Lack of a forensic link

The terrain of the area was muddy and wet,  and once at the house the suspects smashed a glass door which would have produced glass shards. Despite our position that it would have been nearly impossible for the suspects not to have collected any debris on their, police failed to produce any evidence of the same. We pressured the police for images and forensic reports in relation to our shoes, but none were provided.

In addition, several items from the burglary were recovered, and none bore a forensic link to any of the arrested males.

CCTV footage and police observation of the vehicle.

The prosecution relied on CCTV footage taken from a petrol station which showed key roads near the entrance of the crime scene. Only clipped footage was provided, along with a story board in which the Crown were said to have identified the comings and goings of various vehicles, but it was not clear. There was no evidence on the CCTV footage that our car entered the crime scene, nor was anyone in the vehicle captured or witnessed discarding stolen items on the road. Finally, there were multiple vehicles moving around the area, including a van. Despite making the same apparently suspicious movements, no investigations of the van were ever provided to us. It was noted in the evidence that this van left the scene at speed after the alleged burglary.

The Time of the Burglary and Disclosure

The exact time of the burglary was recorded, due to one of the complainants being on the phone to a 999 operator at the very time it was taking place. Despite this, the prosecution failed to provide this record, which rendered the CCTV footage of vehicles in the area somewhat meaningless. This material was avidly pursued in our client’s interest, as it had the potential to exonerate him. Once disclosed, it showed the defendant to be driving towards the crime scene at the time of the burglary

The prosecution re-framed their case to suggest our client was a get-away driver. However, this made little sense given he remained driving on the road of the scene 13 minutes after the offence, suggesting he was in no rush to leave. After numerous deadlines and written pursuit of disclosure, material was provided suggesting the complainants themselves were involved in criminal activity operating out of the burgled property.

We submitted an application to dismiss which was heard at Canterbury Crown Court, and After length submissions the Judge dismissed the case on the basis that a reasonable Jury even if properly directed would not be able to convict the defendants on the charge against them.

Our client and his mother were incredibly pleased with the outcome.

Phoebe Coleman was the solicitor with conduct of this case. Natasha Hardaker assisted as her paralegal, and Jessica Ward of 2 Bedford Row was instructed Counsel.