We represented a young adult who had been charged with two offences of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. The police executed warrants at several addresses and recovered drugs, telephones and a large amount of cash. A number of people were arrested however, it was only our client that was charged. This was despite others being found inside the property where the items were recovered. It was the Crown’s case that our client was operating a drugs line across London and they relied upon telephone evidence and CCTV footage to prove their case.
Our client was a young person for most the indictment period, turning 18 only months before their arrest. Third party material made clear that there had been concerns for years that our client was the victim of child criminal exploitation. These concerns had been raised repeatedly by children’s services, education providers and the police themselves and our client had been identified as a victim of child criminal exploitation only months prior to their arrest for these matters. We reminded the police of this whilst our client was detained at the police station, however, they confirmed that a further referral to the National Referral Mechanism would not be made. Our client was charged and refused police bail, however, following representations to the prosecutor at our client’s first appearance, we were able to agree stringent bail conditions which meant that our client was able to return home.
The Crown Prosecution Service instructed the police to make a referral to the National Referral Mechanism at our request. Within days, we had received a further positive reasonable grounds decision. Following the referral being made, the police opened a separate investigation into our client’s exploitation however, this was closed only 24 hours later after our client confirmed that they did not want to speak to the police.
We instructed Dr Alison Conning, a clinical psychologist, who prepared a report which confirmed just how vulnerable our client was. The report focused on our client’s history and how their personal characteristics made them more vulnerable to exploitation but also how their previous interactions with the police had impacted them. We provided the Competent Authority with this report as well as independent records to assist them in reaching a conclusive grounds decision. Within five months, we had received a positive conclusive grounds decision.
Following receipt of the conclusive grounds decision, we made lengthy written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service in which we argued that in accordance with their own guidance, they should not proceed with the prosecution of our client. Despite this, the Crown found that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution. Following receipt of this decision, we invited the Court to list the matter for an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process.
We instructed Dr Grace Robinson, an expert in child criminal exploitation, to prepare a report. Dr Robinson prepared an extensive report which outlined how OCG’s operate and how they have adapted in response to the developments in police investigation techniques. Dr Robinson concluded that our client was the victim of child criminal exploitation throughout the indictment period and that their Article 4 rights had not been protected by the state.
Our application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process focused on how the Crown had failed to properly apply their own guidance and how they had failed to take into consideration highly relevant material, whilst taking into consideration irrelevant factors. It also highlighted the disparity in how our client was treated.
Following service of our application to stay the proceedings and Dr Robinson’s report, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that they would be offering no evidence against our client. The decision was made days before our application was due to be heard. Almost a year after our client had been charged, formal not guilty verdicts were recorded by the Court.
Our client was represented throughout the proceedings by Sabrina Neves, a solicitor in our specialist Youth Justice Team, and in Court by Elena Papamichael, Counsel from Garden Court Chambers.
