Anisha Kiri is successful in a submission of “no case to answer”.

Anisha’s client was facing a charge of Cultivation of cannabis. The Crown’s case was that her client was involved in the upkeep of 136 plants after his DNA was found at the scene of the offence, which was the residence of his co-defendant.

The Crown’s case involved phone messages which demonstrated that Anisha’s client was undertaking legitimate work under the employment of the co-defendant which the defence advanced as a plausible explanation for the presence of the client’s DNA at the property.  

Using the established principles in the case of R v Tsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40, in relation to DNA evidence being the sole evidence in a case, Anisha successfully distinguished her client’s case from that of Tsekiri and the Judge was persuaded to end the case at half-time.      

Anisha was instructed by Karamjit Singh of Holborn Law.