Last September on the A10 roundabout, three men wearing masks and dark clothing held a man at knifepoint and stole his BMW. He was threatened with a knife and asked for his key and phone. One masked man then made off with his car, and two others fled the scene on foot. This man reported this robbery to the police, but no one was found in connection with this robbery.
Over two weeks later, our client Mr B was arrested after a commotion caused by a car chase on Mount Pleasant Road occurred. When the scene calmed down, the police arrested our client, Mr B, as he was at the scene of an alleged crime.
Despite the absence of evidence to back up the allegation that Mr B was driving the BMW causing the disturbance, our client was arrested for dangerous driving and failing to stop. As a result of a gap in the visual evidence provided by the police helicopter, the police could not be sure who was driving. As a result, our client was arrested.
After being arrested and the police conducting further checks on the vehicle, our client was arrested along with the driver of the vehicle. It was determined that the BMW was a stolen vehicle.
The same vehicle that was stolen two weeks previously on the A10.
There was no evidence that suggested our client was the perpetrator of this crime, or responsible for the robbery of the car.
The police sought to locate evidence that demonstrated that the mixed DNA that was found on the vehicle’s steering wheel linked our client, Mr B, to the alleged crimes.
A serious crime and fraud solicitor with Stuart Miller Solicitors, Duygu Basiguzel, presented expert evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the client.
The purpose of this was to demonstrate that Mr B cannot be correlated with the stolen vehicle on the A10.
In addition, Stuart Miller Solicitors requested additional information regarding the supposed fingerprint of Mr B found in the stolen vehicle.
The police did not conduct a statistical analysis of the mixed DNA. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Court were informed by Duygu Basiguzel that there was no quantitative analysis. Therefore, the Crown could not rely on the DNA evidence presented at trial.
At this point in Mr B’s case, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence. Our client Mr B’s case was discontinued before the hearing took place.