Dharsha Jegatheeswaran’s client was charged with theft from a shop.

The only issue at trial was mistaken identity. Dharsha’s client had been identified by police who had reviewed CCTV footage and compared it to having seen the client in person.

Dharsha secured several key admissions from the identifying officer in cross-examination including that the identification was not PACE-compliant, that the officer’s assessment of the Defendant’s posture and gait was not reliable due to the medical circumstances of the Defendant at the time, and that the remaining parts of the officer’s assessment would not make him sure that the suspect in the CCTV was the Defendant.

At the close of the Crown’s case, Dharsha made a submission of no case to answer on the basis the officer’s identification could not be admissible as per the AG’s Ref No 2 of 2002, and alternatively, it was an unreliable identification which the officer himself admitted could not make him sure.

The Judge agreed with both limbs of Dharsha’s submission and held there was no case to answer, acquitting the Defendant.

Dharsha was instructed by Sean O’Brien of Powell Spencer and Partners.