Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Md Omar Saleem and Mr Hasnain Khan of Lexis Solicitors, represented BK at Lewes Crown Court in relation to a commercial burglary arising from a co-ordinated attempt to steal high-value goods from a warehouse compound, at night, using a lorry. The Prosecution case was that, in the early hours of the morning, having overridden entry systems, BK and others entered a secure industrial site in Crawley, using a lorry. The group was said to have sought to remove goods valued at up to £85,000. The operation was interrupted after security systems were triggered, with police apprehending BK near the scene. The Crown relied on forensic evidence, including BK’s blood on a cut fence and DNA on a glove recovered at the scene, alongside the surrounding circumstances of his presence at the location at approximately 3am. On its face, the case bore the hallmarks of a planned commercial burglary, placing it firmly within the range where immediate custody was a realistic and likely outcome, particularly given the value involved and the apparent organisation of the offence. Having been instructed shortly before the hearing, Ms Hodgetts adopted a focused sentencing strategy, including seeking a Goodyear indication, and mitigating extensively. Particular weight was placed on BK’s comparative youth (19 at the time), his now settled circumstances, his positive engagement at court with Probation, and his imminent fatherhood. Following submissions, the court accepted that, despite the seriousness of the offending, the case could properly be brought just below the custodial threshold. The Judge expressly recognised the combination of delay, age, plea, and progress made, noting that the matter “tilted” just away from immediate custody. BK was sentenced to a 12-month Community Order with 150 hours unpaid work, thereby avoiding a custodial sentence in circumstances where imprisonment had been a realistic prospect.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Ms Caroline Liggins of Hodge Jones & Allen, represented EC in a multi-day jury trial concerning an allegation of wounding with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861), arising from a street altercation involving the use of a multi-tool, which was clearly and fully captured on CCTV. The case was marked by significant disclosure issues, including the late service of key Prosecution material shortly before trial. In particular, the Crown sought to rely on body-worn video footage from an earlier incident, said to demonstrate hostile intent on the part of the Defendant. This material had not been properly flagged in advance, had not featured in the Crown’s opening, and was only formally exhibited on the eve of trial. The Defence case was advanced on the basis of pre-emptive self-defence, supported by EC’s account of a prior violent attack by the Complainant and others. Through cross-examination and structured advocacy, the Defence exposed inconsistencies in the evidence, including the limitations in the CCTV evidence, the weaknesses in the Crown’s attempt to frame the earlier incident as evidence of intent, and the absence of the Complainant at trial (though the incident was fully captured on clear CCTV). Following trial, the jury acquitted EC of wounding with intent (s.18), rejecting the Prosecution’s case at its highest. EC was instead convicted of unlawful wounding (s.20). At sentence, the court concluded that the appropriate penalty had already been served, and EC was treated as having served his sentence in full.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Ms Arabella Snelling of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, successfully secured a suspended sentence for Sapper T., a young soldier, in a case before the Court Martial at Bulford involving the production of a knife during a confrontation between soldiers. Sapper T. was convicted of threatening behaviour contrary to s.21(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, after a trial arising from an incident in military accommodation in which, during a heated exchange, he allegedly produced a lock knife and threatened to make another soldier bleed. The incident was witnessed by others, including an independent witness who intervened and defused the scene. The Crown emphasised the seriousness of the offence, particularly the presence of a knife, and invited the Court Martial Board to consider immediate detention. There was also a high risk of potential dismissal from military service (as in any Court Martial case involving use of a knife). On behalf of Sapper T., Ms Hodgetts advanced detailed mitigation, focusing on his youth, previous good character, operational commitment, and the wholly isolated nature of the incident. It was submitted that the offence represented a brief and uncharacteristic loss of control in a highly charged situation, rather than entrenched or escalating misconduct. A key issue for the Court Martial was the appropriate categorisation of the offence, given that the use of a knife is not expressly addressed within the relevant military sentencing guideline. The Judge Advocate and Board determined that the case fell within Category B2, placing it at the top of the category due to the presence of the weapon. The Court Martial identified a custodial starting point of 20 weeks’ service detention, reduced to 15 weeks following mitigation. The central question then became whether that sentence should be served immediately. In submissions, Ms Hodgetts emphasised that Sapper T. was a young soldier at the outset of his career, with a strong service record and clear prospects of rehabilitation, and that immediate custody would be disproportionate in light of the circumstances. The Court Martial expressly recognised that the offence represented a short-lived lapse in judgment in an otherwise blameless career, and that Sapper T. had already begun to address the underlying issues through engagement with welfare support. In a decision described by the Court as finely balanced, the Board accepted those submissions and imposed a sentence of 15 weeks’ service detention, suspended for 18 months, with no additional conditions. No compensation order was made, and a deprivation order was imposed in respect of the knife. The young soldier avoided immediate custody or service detention, and was permitted to continue his otherwise exemplary military service career.

Operation Ravenclaw: Attorney-General withdraws ULS reference following Defence representations. Ms Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Elliot Mather LLP, successfully opposed an application by the Law Officers to refer the sentence of her client, YD, to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme. Ms Hodgetts represented YD at trial and sentence in Operation Ravenclaw, a large multi-handed prosecution concerning a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs across Nottinghamshire. The Prosecution case relied heavily on extensive telephone and surveillance evidence said to demonstrate that YD had acted as a courier for members of the conspiracy. The defence case advanced at trial was that YD, a vulnerable and socially isolated woman with significant mental health difficulties, had been drawn into the orbit of others involved in the conspiracy and had not knowingly transported drugs. At sentence, following conviction after trial, Ms Hodgetts advanced detailed submissions concerning YD’s limited role, vulnerability, and the short duration of her involvement. The court imposed a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with 30 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days – and YD therefore avoided immediate custody. Following sentence, the Solicitor-General applied to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient under the Attorney-General’s Reference (Unduly Lenient Sentence) scheme. Ms Hodgetts prepared and served written representations opposing the proposed reference, identifying errors in the Law Officers’ understanding of the sentence imposed, and addressing the broader sentencing context of the case, including YD’s culpability, vulnerability, and relevant Court of Appeal authorities. After considering Ms Hodgetts’ representations, the Attorney-General’s Office confirmed that their application to refer the sentence as unduly lenient had been withdrawn from the Court of Appeal

Nina Grahame KC secures acquittals in multi-complainant sexual offences trial. Complex issues relating to cross admissibility and permissible cross examination (YJCEA 1999 s.41 and CJA 2003 s.100) were successfully resolved in the defendant’s favour. Nina was instructed by Rachel Innes of Monan Gozzett solicitors to defend a 49 year old defendant of good character at his trial at the Reading Crown Court. The case involved a total of 6 alleged sexual offences committed against 5 teenage friends aged 12-15 years at the time. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had groomed and gained the trust of the girls by offering them emotional support as well as gifts, alcohol and vapes. The alleged offences consisted of various serious sexual assaults which took place at the defendant’s home when other members of his family were asleep in the property. The defence relied upon both deliberate and inadvertent collusion and contamination between the 5 girls and deployed a detailed analysis of phone downloads, school records and complaint evidence in support of the defence case. The case was further complicated by the defendant’s long-diagnosed ADHD; his condition impacted upon his presentation and behaviour during the investigation and throughout the trial process, during which a variety of adaptations enabled him to fully and fairly participate in the trial process. The defendant was convicted by a majority on a single count relating to one offence that had led to an immediate complaint in 2022. He was acquitted of all offences against the other 4 complainants. Nina praised the diligence of her instructing solicitor, Rachel Innes, and Rachel’s support team at Monan Gozzett, whose excellent work over the 3 year period following the defendant’s arrest made a significant contribution to the outcome in this challenging case.

Libertas Chambers reports that Kieran Galvin, instructed by Kerry Spence of Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors, successfully represented Nathan Graham in his appeal against a 12-year sentence imposed at Croydon Crown Court for one count of grievous bodily harm with intent. The appeal required the Court to consider whether an unbroken bottle fell within the definition of a highly dangerous weapon under the relevant sentencing guideline, and whether the injuries sustained justified placing the offence in the highest category of harm. Following detailed submissions on both the classification of the weapon and the proper categorisation of the injuries, the Court acceded to the defence arguments. The original 12-year sentence was quashed and substituted with a term of 7 years’ imprisonment. For further information about Kieran’s appellate practice, please contact our clerking team.

Dr Felicity Gerry KC leads an application to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture for 8 IPP prisoners Last week an application was filed with the mandate for the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. This was based on a report by Dr Felicity Gerry KC which presents the experiences of eight people detained under the IPP regime. The members of this sample group have much in common. They have all been imprisoned far beyond the minimum term prescribed by their sentencing; on average they have each served 516% of their tariff. All have found it difficult or impossible to access rehabilitative programs which would help them demonstrate their readiness for release. They have all experienced a decline in their mental health as a result of their indefinite incarceration. For most this is layered on histories of trauma, violence, childhood deprivation, institutional abuse, and existing or previously undiagnosed mental health conditions. At least half of them are neurodivergent: with diagnoses for ASD, ADHD and OCD among them. All have been failed by systems that ought to have addressed their needs and progressed them to rehabilitation and release. It is not good enough to punish people as ‘dangerous’ and impose indeterminate detention, without an understanding of their conditions and following a scheme which has no real prospect for liberty. The report provides case examples that seek direct findings of harm, recommends immediate abolition of the IPP sentence/reduction to a determinate sentence for those affected, with compensation, alternatively an urgent review mechanism in the sentencing court for all people subject to an IPP sentence. Felicity was instructed by Dean Kingham from Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors who has instructed Felicity in relation to over 90 people subject to IPP sentencing. Research was provided by Phillipa Stafford, Daphne Yuqing Liu, Ben Haveron, Siven Watt and Jiaying Wang. YOU CAN READ A REDACTED COPY OF THE REPORT HERE For the full version please contact Dean Kingham.

Libertas Chambers reports that Darren Snow, instructed by Debbie Martin of Black & Co, defended in a complex domestic case involving allegations of rape, sexual assault and harassment at Leicester Crown Court. The matter was transferred on legal aid to Black & Co only weeks before trial. Following extensive work on disclosure and unused material, combined with a detailed review of the prosecution evidence, significant issues were identified concerning the reliability of the complainant’s account and the strength of the case overall. After discussions with the Crown, the case was resolved by way of a guilty plea to harassment on a carefully drafted basis of plea. The defendant, who had been remanded in custody since September 2025, was immediately released on the basis of time already served.   For further information about Darren’s practice or to discuss related matters, please contact our clerking team.