News & Insights

Cannabis plant

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.


Related Practice Areas

Popular Insights

Tom Edwards looks at the impact of the shift from Joint Enterprise to Common Purpose in the five years since…


Ben Hargreaves explores the inherent challenges in the admissibility of sexual history in sex cases. Section 41 of the Youth…


Silas Lee, pupil barrister, reviews the statutory regime on witness anonymity. Anonymous witness orders are most commonly sought by the…


An analysis of the law on fitness to plead and stand trial in the magistrates’ courts: Silas Lee reviews the…


Portfolio Builder

Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)