Litigator: Rebecca Applegarth Counsel: Harry Martin

Our client was acquitted of robbery and possession of an imitation firearm following a four-day jury trial at Woolwich Crown Court.

The case concerned an allegation arising on Christmas Day 2025, when our client was accused of stealing scratch cards from a convenience store while threatening staff with what they believed to be a firearm.

Our client was arrested in March 2026 and remanded to HMP Belmarsh pending trial.

The Prosecution Allegations: Robbery and Possession of an Imitation Firearm

The prosecution alleged that our client had used an item resembling a firearm during the robbery.

When arrested, a silver lighter was found in our client’s possession. The prosecution contended that this was the item that had been held towards the complainants during the incident. However, there were significant inconsistencies in the evidence.

In particular, the complainant’s witness statement described the item as black, rather than silver. The prosecution also relied upon a 999 call in which the item was described as potentially being a knife or gun.

CCTV footage showed the complainant stopping abruptly and jumping backwards. Crucially, however, our client was positioned outside the relevant camera view at that moment. The footage therefore could not establish what our client was holding or what he was doing when the complainant reacted.

Our client’s instructions were that the item he had been holding was his mobile phone, rather than a firearm or imitation firearm.

Defence Strategy in the Robbery and Imitation Firearm Case

The defence case focused on the distinction between the admitted theft and the prosecution’s allegation that an imitation firearm had been used.

Our client had admitted the theft. This enabled counsel, Harry Martin from 25 Bedford Row, to focus the jury’s attention on the evidence required to establish the more serious allegations rather than disputing matters that our client had accepted.

The defence carefully examined the inconsistencies between the witnesses’ descriptions and the physical evidence, including the discrepancy between the black item described in the witness statement and the silver lighter recovered from our client.

The CCTV evidence was also central. Although the footage captured the complainant’s reaction, it did not show our client at the precise moment in question and could not establish what, if anything, he was holding.

The defence also invited the jury to consider the complainant’s subsequent conduct. If the complainant had genuinely believed that our client was armed and was as fearful as described, the defence submitted that it was unusual that he subsequently chose to take his van out to look for the defendants.

The Defence Case Statement was prepared and drafted by Rebecca Applegarth, setting out the defence position and the issues arising from the prosecution evidence.

The Verdict – unanimous not guilty verdicts

Following a four-day trial, the jury returned unanimous Not Guilty verdicts on both counts. The jury reached its verdicts after approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes of deliberation.

Our client was therefore acquitted of:Robbery and Possession of an imitation firearm. Had our client been convicted he would have been looking at anywhere between 7-12 years.