Jonathon Enston and Elisha Kaur secured the acquittal of an individual alleged to have been involved in a large-scale conspiracy to import Class A drugs. Our client spent two years on remand having instructed us after he had appeared before the Magistrates’ Court.

Following a four-week trial at Inner London Crown Court, the jury returned with an unanimous not guilty verdict in respect of the following count faced by our client:

Conspiracy to import a controlled drug of class A contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997.

Our client was alleged to have played a leading role with the prosecution case relying heavily upon cell-site evidence and messages they alleged were sent by our client on Encrochat as well as another Non-Encro device with the latter being found in our client’s possession upon his arrest.

In order to undermine the prosecution’s case, we gathered a substantial amount of evidence to support the defendant’s case. This was done by a close analysis of the evidence on the two phones attributed to our client through which we were able to explain to the jury that the prosecution were incorrect despite the telephone attribution evidence for both telephones weighing heavily against our client. Following a four-week trial at Inner London Crown Court, the jury returned with an unanimous not guilty verdict in respect of the following count faced by our client:

Conspiracy to import a controlled drug of class A contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997.

Our client was alleged to have played a leading role with the prosecution case relying heavily upon cell-site evidence and messages they alleged were sent by our client on Encrochat as well as another Non-Encro device with the latter being found in our client’s possession upon his arrest.

In order to undermine the prosecution’s case, we gathered a substantial amount of evidence to support the defendant’s case. This was done by a close analysis of the evidence on the two phones attributed to our client through which we were able to explain to the jury that the prosecution were incorrect despite the telephone attribution evidence for both telephones weighing heavily against our client.