Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr John Goodwin and Ms Vanda Haunch of Ison Harrison Solicitors, represented Ms CF in Operation Bale, a substantial multi-handed fraud and money laundering prosecution at Teesside Crown Court involving allegations of conspiracy, spanning several years and numerous Defendants. The wider Prosecution concerned allegations that vulnerable customers had been dishonestly overcharged for building and maintenance work, together with associated allegations of converting criminal property through the use of third-party bank accounts. Ms CF faced an allegation of conspiracy to convert criminal property, arising primarily from the use of her bank account in circumstances which the Crown ultimately accepted required significantly more nuanced consideration than had initially been suggested. The case was listed for a trial initially estimated at up to eight weeks, involving extensive evidential material, multiple Defendants, and complex issues surrounding attribution, knowledge, and participation within an alleged wider conspiracy. Ms Hodgetts had conduct of the case from PTPH onwards. Detailed Defence representations were advanced regarding the evidential position against Ms CF. The Crown ultimately accepted that: there was no direct identification evidence implicating her in the underlying conspiracy allegations; the financial activity relied upon by the Prosecution required a different inference from that initially advanced; and the Crown case itself suggested that the relevant banking activity had occurred at the direction or behest of a Co-Defendant. Following negotiations between counsel, and just before the jury was sworn, the Crown agreed that the appropriate course was for the charge against Ms CF to lie on file, pending the conclusion of proceedings against the remaining Defendants, at which point the Prosecution will formally offer no evidence. The result brought proceedings against Ms CF to an effective end immediately before the jury was sworn, avoiding her participation in what became a lengthy and complex multi-handed jury trial continuing against the remaining Defendants.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Nathan Jones and Ms Chloe Lawton of Pure Law Solicitors, secured a unanimous Not Guilty verdict for the Client, following a six-day jury trial at Bournemouth Crown Court involving allegations of putting a former partner in fear of violence by harassment. The Prosecution case alleged a course of conduct spanning multiple incidents over several months, including allegations of assaults, threatening communications, repeated attendances at the Complainant’s address. The Crown relied upon a combination of CCTV, BWV, a pocket 999 call, telephone messages, and evidence from civilian and Police witnesses. The case became significantly more complex during the course of proceedings, as: the indictment was amended by the Crown on three separate occasions (including during trial); the estimated two-day trial ultimately lasted six days; and the Crown successfully applied to adduce aspects of bad character, despite detailed Defence opposition under s.78 PACE 1984. A central issue throughout the trial concerned the legal structure of the alleged “course of conduct” under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Ms Hodgetts drafted detailed legal submissions addressing the requirement for jury unanimity as to the underlying incidents said to constitute the course of conduct. Following legal argument, the trial Judge adopted the Defence approach, directing the jury that they had to agree upon the same underlying incidents before any conviction could properly follow. The Defendant, who had significant mental health difficulties, gave evidence at trial. The Defence case maintained that the Prosecution had sought to criminalise what was, in substance, a difficult and emotionally charged relationship breakdown, rather than conduct properly amounting to harassment causing fear of violence. Following retirement, the jury returned a unanimous Not Guilty verdict in around 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Simon Csoka KC (together with Syam Soni) and Dapinder Singh KC (together with Kevin Metzger), successfully secured acquittals for their clients. Both were charged with Murder and Manslaughter. The nine-week trial concerned an outbreak of violence involving weapons on Eid last year. Both Defendants were unanimously acquitted of the homicide offences but convicted of violent disorder. Simon was instructed by Riyaz Shaikh and Tariq Majid of Shaikh Solicitors, whilst Dapinder was instructed by Atta Rehman and Mohammed Hanif of Harris Solicitors. BBC coverage of the case can be found here: BBC News report

Darren Snow, instructed by Zubair Ahmed of Ashmans Solicitors, represented the Defendant throughout the proceedings, plea and sentence hearings in a dangerous driving causing serious injury case. The case concerned a road accident in Hollybush Hill, right by Snaresbrook Crown Court, on the evening of 20 June 2023. A cyclist was hit by the Defendant driving a works lorry and the victim was thrown off their cycle. They sustained catastrophic brain and physical injuries. An air ambulance attended the scene. At the time of sentence, nearly three years later, the victim remained in a specialist hospital unit in a coma with 24/7 care needs. Following negotiation with the CPS and the police officer leading the investigation, a plea to the lesser charge of careless driving causing serious injury was agreed. The Defendant was sentenced on that basis with an agreed basis of plea. At sentence, the victim’s family read out victim impact statements and the devastating impact upon them was clear. Her Honour Judge English, who had overseen the case throughout, imposed a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years with 280 hours unpaid work. The Defendant was also disqualified from driving for two years and must complete an extended driving test before he can regain his licence. In passing sentence, the Judge recognised that there are no winners in these types of cases, and the impact upon the family of the victim had been catastrophic. There was no order for costs or compensation as the Defendant’s employers’ motor insurers were handling a substantial civil claim for damages. Liability had been conceded early on. This was a very sensitive case for all involved. The Defendant took full responsibility for his actions and read out a letter in court explaining his regret. Following the hearing, with the support and assistance of the police officer overseeing the investigation, Darren and the Defendant met with family members of the victim after the hearing to reinforce the Defendant’s remorse and deep regret for what had happened. Darren Snow has many years’ experience working on serious motoring cases involving death and serious injury. He also has extensive experience working with underlying motor insurers, reflecting his previous career in the insurance industry before joining the Bar. Photo by Nigel Cox via Geograph, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Darren Hornsby of Robert Lizar Solicitors, secured the collapse of a serious drugs case involving over 23kg of cannabis concealed within furniture destined for export to Ireland. The case against HT, in Wood Green Crown Court, concerned an allegation of possession with intent to supply (PWITS), arising from the discovery of 23.27kg of cannabis hidden within a sofa intercepted by Police in Staffordshire. The Prosecution case against HT rested entirely on forensic evidence said to link him to the packaging: specifically, fingerprints said to be his being identified on a plastic bag containing the drugs within the concealed shipment. There was no DNA evidence, no evidence of handling the sofa itself, no evidence of involvement in the logistics of the export, and no communications, financial, or surveillance material connecting HT to the alleged operation. From the outset, the Defence position was clear: the case was fundamentally incapable of establishing knowledge or control. At its highest, the evidence suggested no more than contact with a movable object at an unknown time, in circumstances entirely consistent with innocent handling of a plastic bag (if, indeed, the identification of the prints was even accurate). Ms Hodgetts drafted a detailed application to dismiss, drawing on appellate authority confirming that even DNA evidence, without more, may be insufficient to found a conviction where the timing and context of transfer cannot be established – and that the position was stronger still in a fingerprint-only case involving transferable items such as plastic packaging. The Defence submissions highlighted that there was no evidence capable of establishing when any alleged contact occurred, no evidence linking HT to the concealment, transport, or intended export of the drugs, no evidential basis upon which a jury could safely infer knowledge of the contents of the packaging – and that the Crown’s case, taken at its highest, could not meet the threshold required for a proper conviction. Before the application was even argued before the Court, the Crown reviewed the position and offered no evidence, stating that: “there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction” – resulting in a Not Guilty verdict for the Client, and securing acquittal without the case even going to trial.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr Hockham Salhan and Mr Mukesh Salhan of MCS Solicitors, and led by Dominic D’Souza, represented D1 in Operation Critic, a substantial HMRC prosecution concerning an alleged conspiracy to evade excise duty on tobacco products. The trial, heard at Bristol Crown Court, lasted in excess of nine weeks and involved multiple Defendants. The Crown advanced a case of large-scale, organised offending, relying on extensive telecommunications evidence, surveillance material, and documentation arising from coordinated searches. Acting for the lead Defendant, Ms Hodgetts was closely involved in the development and execution of defence strategy across a complex evidential landscape, requiring detailed forensic analysis of call data, usage patterns, and cross-referencing with the broader evidential picture. The Defence also engaged extensively with disclosure and evidential integrity issues, including issues arising from the continuity and documentation of seized material, the contents of many thousands of calls and telephone messages over time, and the limitations of surveillance evidence in establishing knowledge of the alleged contents of boxes. These matters were pursued through sustained cross-examination of HMRC officers and other Prosecution witnesses, alongside ongoing disclosure engagement and careful management of a large volume of material over the course of the trial. Following verdicts, the team continue to represent D1 at sentence in 2026, in order to secure the most appropriate outcome in all the circumstances. The case attracted national media attention and was covered by The Sun.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Ms Karen Struckley of KST Solicitors, represented the Defendant in these very unusual proceedings, before the Central Criminal Court, concerning an allegation of possession of a bladed article in a public place. The Prosecution case arose from a report that the Defendant had been seen with a kitchen knife in a grassy field near where he lived. The CPS relied on Police evidence, Body Worn Video, and the Defendant’s acceptance that he had the knife in his possession. The Defence case, consistently advanced from the outset, was that the Defendant had a lawful and reasonable excuse – he was using the knife as a tool to cut grass as food for his rescue rabbits (and a Bag for Life full of cut grass was in fact formally seized at the scene by Police as an Exhibit). The matter was prepared for trial, with a Not Guilty plea entered and full trial directions set. At Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Old Bailey, the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that the case must continue to trial. However, it was marked by significant and sustained disclosure failures – and, one year on, despite service of a detailed Defence Statement, the CPS had failed to provide any substantive response to the Defence, or comply with its ongoing disclosure obligations. The Defence sought to list the case for s.8 CPIA 1996 application due to Crown disclosure failings – but also made renewed submissions that the case did not meet the Full Code Test, whether evidentially or in the public interest. Defence Counsel invited the Crown to reconsider the propriety of pursuing a trial in circumstances where this was simply a case of a mature gentleman peacefully cutting grass to feed his four rather inventively named pet rabbits. Following these submissions, and prior to the hearing, the Crown reviewed the case and confirmed that they would be offering no evidence, as there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.” The Prosecution accordingly offered no evidence, and a Not Guilty verdict was returned.

Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Phil Smith, Aysu Haker, and Cara McCormick, represented a professional musician facing a charge of handling stolen goods. The Client was charged following the recovery of high-end professional microphones from their home – with the Crown placing their value in excess of £120,000. After forming the view that the Crown’s case was fundamentally flawed, Ms Hodgetts drafted and advanced a comprehensive application to dismiss the case, targeting the central question of whether the evidence, taken at its highest, could properly sustain a conviction. The submissions asserted that the Prosecution case was strikingly limited, resting entirely on the fact that the items were located at the client’s address. Ms Hodgetts further argued that there was no evidence of dishonesty, no evidence of knowledge or belief that the goods were stolen, and no material capable of rebutting the client’s consistent account that they were a bona fide purchaser, in the ordinary course of their work as a professional musician. The application emphasised that the case was not simply weak, but legally incapable of meeting the threshold required to be left to a jury, and that to proceed would be an improper use of both court time and public resources. The outcome of the written submissions was immediate, which succeeded without even being argued in court. Upon consideration of the Defence application, the Crown promptly offered no evidence – which resulted in a Not Guilty verdict, bringing proceedings to a close without the need for the matter to be tried.