Shina Animashaun of the Garden Court Crime Team acted for the defendant, instructed by Carly Debins of Elliott Stern Solicitors.
Following a seven-week trial at Wood Green Crown Court, Shina Animashaun secured the acquittal of his client, who faced allegations of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The defendant was accused of using a handgun in an alleged attempt on another person’s life.
The prosecution case rested almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. The Crown alleged that the defendant had travelled on an e-bike to the scene of a shooting before fleeing the area with another suspect. To support that case, the prosecution relied upon extensive CCTV footage, call data, cell-site evidence, social media material, and police identification evidence.
At the heart of the case was a “process of elimination” argument. The prosecution contended that only two individuals could have left a property linked to the offence and travelled to the scene.
Through careful analysis of approximately 50 hours of CCTV footage, Shina exposed significant gaps and inconsistencies within the prosecution’s timeline. Cross-examination of the CCTV analyst established that the investigation had repeatedly misidentified individuals captured on footage, including wrongly attributing unrelated members of the public as suspects connected to the shooting. By demonstrating that key individuals identified on CCTV were, in fact, unrelated members of the public, the defence was able to undermine the continuity of the prosecution’s tracking evidence.
The defence further challenged the Crown’s interpretation of telephone and cell-site evidence. By analysing call schedules alongside the CCTV chronology, Shina identified patterns inconsistent with the prosecution’s assertion that the defendant had travelled on the e-bike involved in the offence. The defence case instead suggested that the call data supported the inference that another individual was travelling on the e-bike, rather than the defendant.
A further issue arose from the prosecution’s attempt to adduce alleged “drill lyrics” said to implicate the defendant in the shooting. Following legal argument, the material was excluded. The defence successfully argued that the evidence amounted to multiple hearsay, lacked proper attribution, and was undermined by deficiencies in the underlying metadata and evidential context.
In closing, Shina invited the jury to consider whether the investigation had become driven by assumption rather than evidence, submitting that investigators had worked backwards from a theory of guilt instead of objectively testing the reliability of the material before them.
Of the three defendants standing trial, Shina’s client was the only defendant acquitted of all charges.
Get in touch with Shina’s clerking team at crimeclerksmailbox@gclaw.co.uk.
