We represented FH, a child charged with burglary of a commercial property.
The prosecution’s case against FH was that his handprint was found on the door of a building that had been burgled. Despite what may have seemed like strong evidence against him, FH pleaded not guilty to the offence. We argued that although our client’s hand print had been found on the door, the prosecution had insufficient evidence to prove their case. This argument was based on case law surrounding the gathering of forensic evidence.
Although the Crown Prosecution Service maintained that they did have sufficient evidence to proceed at the hearing, they later discontinued the case against FH on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
FH was represented by Sabrina Neves of our East Dulwich Office.